ArticlePLoS biology2016
Current Incentives for Scientists Lead to Underpowered Studies with Erroneous Conclusions.
Article in PLoS biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
64 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Assessing the Evidential Value of Mental Fatigue and Exercise Research.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Pooled it
- Effect size and statistical power in the rodent fear conditioning literature - A systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- The scientific game : Strategic Behavior and Incentives in Science.EMBO reports · 2026Article
- The publish or perish, publish and perish, publish then perish, and now retract and perish cultures in academia.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Review
- Replicability of bulk RNA-Seq differential expression and enrichment analysis results for small cohort sizes.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Better nanoscience through open, collaborative, and critical discussions.Materials horizons · 2024Review
- Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- The landscape of open science in behavioral addiction research: Current practices and future directions.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2023Review
- Science Communication as a Collective Intelligence Endeavor: A Manifesto and Examples for Implementation.Science communication · 2023Article
- Practical notes on popular statistical tests in renal physiology.American journal of physiology. Renal physiology · 2022Review
- Reverse Bayesian Implications of p-Values Reported in Critical Care Randomized Trials.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2022Article
- Do German university medical centres promote robust and transparent research? A cross-sectional study of institutional policies.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Excess significance and power miscalculations in neurofeedback research.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2022Article
- Developing an open science 'mindset'.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2022Review
- Stakeholders' views on an institutional dashboard with metrics for responsible research.PloS one · 2022Article
- Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Estimating the reproducibility of social learning research published between 1955 and 2018.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- Competition for priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help.Nature human behaviour · 2021Article
4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We can regard the wider incentive structures that operate across science, such as the priority given to novel findings, as an ecosystem within which scientists strive to maximise their fitness (i.e., publication record and career success). Here, we develop an optimality model that predicts the most rational research strategy, in terms of the proportion of research effort spent on seeking novel results rather than on confirmatory studies, and the amount of research effort per exploratory study. We show that, for parameter values derived from the scientific literature, researchers acting to maximise their fitness should spend most of their effort seeking novel results and conduct small studies that have only 10%-40% statistical power. As a result, half of the studies they publish will report erroneous conclusions. Current incentive structures are in conflict with maximising the scientific value of research; we suggest ways that the scientific ecosystem could be improved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.