Meta-research: Why research on research matters release 345hh6csxrdfxpsvugmracod7y

by John P. A. Ioannidis

Published in PLoS Biology by Public Library of Science (PLoS)
ISSN-L 1544-9173
Volume 16
Page(s) e2005468
Release Date 2018-03-13
Publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Primary Language en (lookup)
All Contributors (1)

Extra Metadata (raw JSON)

crossref.license [{'delay-in-days': 0, 'content-version': 'vor', 'URL': '', 'start': '2018-03-13T00:00:00Z'}]
crossref.type journal-article

Known Files and URLs

application/pdf  872.6 kB
sha1:9fe0216ff306cfcd81e9... (publisher) (webarchive)


This release citing other releases
  1. Meta-research: Evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices PLoS Biol.2015e1002264 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264)
  2. Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar Scientometrics.2015931 (DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6)
  3. The geotemporal demographics of academic journals from 1950 to 2013 according to Ulrich's database J Informetrics.2017655 (DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.006)
  4. Webometrics. List of universities (as of January 2017). [Cited 21 January 2018]. Available from:
  5. Are medical conferences useful? And for whom? JAMA.20121257 (DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.360)
  6. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review JAMA.2003454 (DOI: 10.1001/jama.289.4.454)
  7. Reproducible research practices and transparency across the biomedical literature PLoS Biol.2016e1002333 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002333)
  8. Meta-assessment of bias in science Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.20173714 (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1618569114)
  9. Science mapping analysis characterizes 235 biases in biomedical research J Clin Epidemiol.20101205 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.011)
  10. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data PLoS ONE.2009e5738 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738)
  11. The reproducibility wars: successful, unsuccessful, uninterpretable, exact, conceptual, triangulated, contested replication Clin Chem.2017943 (DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2017.271965)
  12. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility Nature.2016452 (DOI: 10.1038/533452a)
  13. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses Milbank Q.2016485 (DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210)
  14. On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers BMJ Open.2013e002800 (DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002800)
  15. The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: strong imbalance in the collective enterprise PLoS ONE.2016e0166387 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166387)
  16. Design and update of a classification system: the UCSD map of science PLoS ONE.2012e39464 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039464)
  17. When will AI exceed human performance? Evidence from AI experts arXiv.2017
Download Full Text
Type  article-journal
Stage   published
Date   2018-03-13
DOI  10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468
PubMed  29534060
PMC  PMC5865753
Wikidata  Q52658008
Container Metadata
Open Access Publication
ISSN-L:  1544-9173
Fatcat Entry
Work Entity
grouping other versions (eg, pre-print) and variants of this release
Cite This Release
Fatcat Bits

State is "active". Revision:
As JSON object via API