| Title |
How to Make More Published Research True
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS Medicine, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John P. A. Ioannidis |
| Abstract |
In a 2005 paper that has been accessed more than a million times, John Ioannidis explained why most published research findings were false. Here he revisits the topic, this time to address how to improve matters. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,325 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 254 | 19% |
| United Kingdom | 174 | 13% |
| Canada | 77 | 6% |
| Spain | 44 | 3% |
| Australia | 43 | 3% |
| France | 40 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 27 | 2% |
| Germany | 20 | 2% |
| Japan | 12 | <1% |
| Other | 178 | 13% |
| Unknown | 456 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 755 | 57% |
| Scientists | 389 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 103 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 75 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,314 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 24 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 16 | 1% |
| France | 11 | <1% |
| Germany | 10 | <1% |
| Spain | 7 | <1% |
| Sweden | 5 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 5 | <1% |
| Brazil | 5 | <1% |
| Australia | 5 | <1% |
| Other | 33 | 3% |
| Unknown | 1193 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 295 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 208 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 153 | 12% |
| Other | 110 | 8% |
| Professor | 93 | 7% |
| Other | 333 | 25% |
| Unknown | 122 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 252 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 215 | 16% |
| Psychology | 128 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 82 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 56 | 4% |
| Other | 389 | 30% |
| Unknown | 192 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1295. 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 13 April 2024.
All research outputs
#10,481
of 25,804,096 outputs
Outputs from PLOS Medicine
#36
of 5,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43
of 274,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS Medicine
#1
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,804,096 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 5,240 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 75.2. 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 274,011 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 61 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 98% of its contemporaries.