How to Make More Published Research True

1. BoyackKW, KlavansR, SorensenAA, IoannidisJP (2013) A list of highly influential biomedical researchers, 1996–2011. Eur J Clin Invest 43: 1339–1365.

2. IoannidisJP (2008) Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 19: 640–648.

3. IoannidisJP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2: e124.

4. Contopoulos-IoannidisDG, AlexiouGA, GouviasTC, IoannidisJP (2008) Life cycle of translational research for medical interventions. Science 321: 1298–1299.

5. MacleodMR, MichieS, RobertsI, DirnaglU, ChalmersI, et al. (2014) Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383: 101–104.

6. NicholsonJM, IoannidisJPA (2012) Research grants: Conform and be funded. Nature 492: 34–36.

7. WennerasC, WoldA (1997) Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387: 341–343.

8. NickersonRS (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 2: 175–220.

9. MynattaCR, DohertyaME, TweneyaRD (1977) Confirmation bias in a simulated research environment: An experimental study of scientific inference. Quarterly J Exp Psychol 29: 85–95.

10. GreenhalghT, HowickJ, MaskreyN (2014) Evidence Based Medicine Renaissance Group (2014) Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 348: g3725.

11. StamatakisE1, WeilerR, IoannidisJP (2013) (2013) Undue industry influences that distort healthcare research, strategy, expenditure and practice: a review. Eur J Clin Invest 43: 469–475.

12. ChalmersI, BrackenMB, DjulbegovicB, GarattiniS, GrantJ, et al. (2014) How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 383: 156–165.

13. RennieD, FlanaginA (2014) Research on peer review and biomedical publication: furthering the quest to improve the quality of reporting. JAMA 311: 1019–1020.

14. DanthiN, WuCO, ShiP, LauerM (2014) Percentile ranking and citation impact of a large cohort of national heart, lung, and blood institute-funded cardiovascular R01 grants. Circ Res 114: 600–606.

15. IoannidisJP (2011) More time for research: fund people not projects. Nature 477: 529–531.

16. NCI-NHGRI Working Group on Replication in Association Studies (2007) ChanockSJ, ManolioT, BoehnkeM, BoerwinkleE, et al. (2007) Replicating genotype-phenotype associations. Nature 447(7145): 655–660.

17. IoannidisJP1, TaroneR, McLaughlinJK (2011) The false-positive to false-negative ratio in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology 22: 450–456.

18. PanagiotouOA, WillerCJ, HirschhornJN, IoannidisJP (2013) The power of meta-analysis in genome-wide association studies. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 14: 441–465.

19. KhouryMJ, LamTK, IoannidisJP, HartgeP, SpitzMR, et al. (2013) Transforming epidemiology for 21st century medicine and public health. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 22: 508–516.

20. BissellM (2013) Reproducibility: The risks of the replication drive. Nature 503: 333–334.

21. SiontisKC, Hernandez-BoussardT, IoannidisJP (2013) Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ 347: f4501.

22. ZarinDA, IdeNC, TseT, HarlanWR, WestJC, et al. (2007) Issues in the registration of clinical trials. JAMA 297: 2112–2120.

23. ZarinDA, TseT, WilliamsRJ, CaliffRM, IdeNC (2011) The ClinicalTrials.gov results database–update and key issues. N Engl J Med 364: 852–860.

24. DwanK, GambleC, WilliamsonPR, KirkhamJJ (2013) Reporting Bias Group (2013) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS ONE 8: e66844.

25. ChanAW, SongF, VickersA, JeffersonT, DickersinK, et al. (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 383: 257–266.

26. Dal-RéR, IoannidisJP, BrackenMB, BufflerPA, ChanAW, et al. (2014) Making prospective registration of observational research a reality. Sci Transl Med 6: 224cm1.

27. MacleodM (2011) Why animal research needs to improve. Nature 477: 511.

28. StoddenV, GuoP, MaZ (2013) Toward reproducible computational research: an empirical analysis of data and code policy adoption by journals. PLoS ONE 8: e67111.

29. DonohoDL (2010) An invitation to reproducible computational research. Biostatistics 11: 385–388.

30. PengRD (2011) Reproducible research in computational science. Science 334: 1226–1227.

31. PengRD, DominiciF, ZegerSL (2006) Reproducible epidemiologic research. Am J Epidemiol 163: 783–789.

32. DoshiP, GoodmanSN, IoannidisJP (2013) Raw data from clinical trials: within reach? Trends Pharmacol Sci 34: 645–647.

33. MontfortinC (2006) Weight of the evidence or wait for the evidence? Protecting underground miners from diesel particulate matter. Am J Public Health 96: 271–276.

34. KassirerJP, AngellM (1994) The journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses. N Engl J Med 331: 669–670.

35. JørgensenAW, HildenJ, GøtzschePC (2006) Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 333: 782.

36. GøtzschePC, IoannidisJP (2012) Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses? BMJ 345: e7031.

37. Institute of Medicine (2011) Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

38. NuzzoR (2014) Scientific method: statistical errors. Nature 506: 150–152.

39. JohnsonVE (2013) Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110: 19313–19317.

40. YoungSS, KarrA (2011) Deming, data, and observational studies: a process out of control and needing fixing. Significance 8: 116–120.

41. PashlerH, HarrisCR (2012) Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Persp Psychol Sci 7: 531–536.

42. SimmonsJP, NelsonLD, SimonsohnU (2011) False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci 22: 1359–1366.

43. IoannidisJP, DoucouliagosC (2013) What's to know about the credibility of empirical economics. J Economic Surveys 27: 997–1004.

44. FanelliD (2010) “Positive” results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS ONE 5: e10068.

45. PosteG (2012) Biospecimens, biomarkers, and burgeoning data: the imperative for more rigorous research standards. Trends Mol Med 18: 717–722.

46. LandisSC, AmaraSG, AsadullahK, AustinCP, BlumensteinR, et al. (2012) A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 490: 187–191.

47. CollinsFS, TabakLA (2014) NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature 505: 612–613.

48. SimeraI, MoherD, HoeyJ, SchulzKF, AltmanDG (2010) A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. Eur J Clin Invest 40: 35–53.

49. NosekBA, Bar-AnandY (2012) Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry 23: 217–223.

50. GlasziouP, AltmanDG, BossuytP, BoutronI, ClarkeM, et al. (2014) Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 383: 267–276.

51. Al-Shahi SalmanR, BellerE, KaganJ, HemminkiE, PhillipsRS, et al. (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet 383: 176–185.

52. KhouryMJ1, GwinnM, DotsonWD, SchullySD (2012) Knowledge integration at the center of genomic medicine. Genet Med 14: 643–647.

53. Al-Shahi SalmanR, BellerE, KaganJ, HemminkiE, PhillipsRS, et al. (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet 383: 176–185.

54. KrumholzSD, EgilmanDS, RossJS (2011) Study of Neurontin: titrate to effect, profile of safety (STEPS) trial. A narrative account of a gabapentin seeding trial. Arch Intern Med 171: 1100–1107.

55. Van NoordenR (2014) China tops Europe in R&D intensity. Nature 505: 144–145.

56. BegleyCG, EllisLM (2012) Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483: 531–533.

57. PrinzF, SchlangeT, AsadullahK (2011) Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov 10: 712.

58. ChristakisDA, ZimmermanFJ (2013) Rethinking reanalysis. JAMA 310: 2499–2500.

59. YoungNS, IoannidisJP, Al-UbaydliO (2008) Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med 5: e201.

60. LaineC, HortonR, DeAngelisCD, DrazenJM, FrizelleFA, et al. (2007) Clinical trial registration: looking back and moving ahead. JAMA 298: 93–94.

61. WittenDM, TibshiraniR (2013) Scientific research in the age of omics: the good, the bad, and the sloppy. J Am Med Inform Assoc 20: 125–127.

62. IoannidisJP, KhouryMJ (2014) Assessing value in biomedical research: The PQRST of appraisal and reward. JAMA 312: 483–484 doi:10.1001/jama.2014.6932

63. IoannidisJP (2010) Is there a glass ceiling for highly cited scientists at the top of research universities? FASEB J 24: 4635–4638.

64. NosekBA, SpiesJR, MotylM (2012) Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Persp Psychological Sci 7: 615–631.

65. HaydenEC (2014) Cancer-gene data sharing boosted. Nature 510: 198.

66. KrumholzHM, GrossCP, BlountKL, RitchieJD, HodshonB, et al. (2014) Sea change in open science and data sharing: leadership by industry. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 7: 499–504.

67. Editorial (2014) Data sharing will pay dividends. Nature 505: 131.

68. BohannonJ (2013) Who's afraid of peer review? Science 342: 60–65.

69. HopewellS, CollinsGS, BoutronI, YuLM, CookJ, et al. (2014) Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ 349: g4145.

70. ScheinM, PaladuguR (2001) Redundant surgical publications: tip of the iceberg? Surgery 129: 655–661.

71. HagenNT (2008) Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS ONE 3: e4021.

72. AzizNA, RozingMP (2013) Profit (p)-index: the degree to which authors profit from co-authors. PLoS ONE 8: e59814.

73. YankV, RennieD (1999) Disclosure of researcher contributions: a study of original research articles in The Lancet. Ann Intern Med 130: 661–670.

74. WagenmakersEJ, ForstmanBU (2014) Rewarding high-power replication research. Cortex 51: 105–106.