↓ Skip to main content

Six Persistent Research Misconceptions

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
634 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
330 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
552 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Six Persistent Research Misconceptions
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11606-013-2755-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenneth J. Rothman

Abstract

Scientific knowledge changes rapidly, but the concepts and methods of the conduct of research change more slowly. To stimulate discussion of outmoded thinking regarding the conduct of research, I list six misconceptions about research that persist long after their flaws have become apparent. The misconceptions are: 1) There is a hierarchy of study designs; randomized trials provide the greatest validity, followed by cohort studies, with case-control studies being least reliable. 2) An essential element for valid generalization is that the study subjects constitute a representative sample of a target population. 3) If a term that denotes the product of two factors in a regression model is not statistically significant, then there is no biologic interaction between those factors. 4) When categorizing a continuous variable, a reasonable scheme for choosing category cut-points is to use percentile-defined boundaries, such as quartiles or quintiles of the distribution. 5) One should always report P values or confidence intervals that have been adjusted for multiple comparisons. 6) Significance testing is useful and important for the interpretation of data. These misconceptions have been perpetuated in journals, classrooms and textbooks. They persist because they represent intellectual shortcuts that avoid more thoughtful approaches to research problems. I hope that calling attention to these misconceptions will spark the debates needed to shelve these outmoded ideas for good.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 634 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 552 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 5 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 531 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 114 21%
Researcher 106 19%
Other 43 8%
Student > Master 43 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 32 6%
Other 130 24%
Unknown 84 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 217 39%
Social Sciences 29 5%
Psychology 27 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 4%
Other 107 19%
Unknown 124 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 407. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2023.
All research outputs
#74,447
of 25,784,004 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#80
of 8,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#583
of 322,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,784,004 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,784 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.