Skip to main content Accessibility help

Why replication has more scientific value than original discovery

  • John P. A. Ioannidis (a1)


The presumed dominance of “original discovery” over replication is an anomaly. Original discovery has more value than replication primarily when scientific investigation can immediately generate numerous discoveries most of which are true and accurate. This scenario is uncommon. A model shows how original discovery claims typically have small or even negative value. Science becomes worthy mostly because of replication.



Hide All
Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Berk, R., Bollen, K. A., Brembs, B., Brown, L., Camerer, C., Cesarini, D., Chambers, C. D., Clyde, M., Cook, T. D., De Boeck, P., Dienes, Z., Dreber, A., Easwaran, K., Efferson, C. Fehr, E., Fidler, F., Field, A. P., Forster, M., George, E. I., Gonzalez, R., Goodman, S., Green, E., Green, D. P., Greenwald, A. G., Hadfield, J. D., Hedges, L. V., Held, L., Ho, T.-H., Hoijtink, H., Hruschka, D. J., Imai, K., Imbens, G., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Jeon, M., Jones, J. H., Kirchler, M., Laibson, D., List, J., Little, R., Lupia, A., Machery, E., Maxwell, S. E., McCarthy, M., Moore, D. A., Morgan, S. L., Munafò, M., Nakagawa, S., Nyhan, B., Parker, T. H., Pericchi, L., Perugini, M., Rouder, J., Rousseau, J., Savalei, V., Shönbrodt, F. D., Sellke, T., Sinclair, B., Tingley, D., Van Zandt, T., Vazire, S., Watts, D. J., Winship, C., Wolpert, R. L., Xie, Y., Young, C., Zinman, J. & Johnson, V. E. (2017) Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour 2:610. Available at:
Bowen, A. & Casadevall, A. (2015) Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112:11335–40.
Chavalarias, D., Wallach, J., Li, A. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016) Evolution of reporting of p-values in the biomedical literature, 1990–2015. Journal of the American Medical Association 315(11):1141–48.
Fanelli, D., Costas, R. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017) A meta-assessment of bias in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114:3714–19.
IntHout, J., Ioannidis, J. P. & Borm, G. (2016) Obtaining evidence by a single well-powered trial or by several modestly powered trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 25:538–52.
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2(8):e124.
Ioannidis, J. P. (2008) Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 19:640–48.
Ioannidis, J. P. (2013a) Implausible results in human nutrition research. British Medical Journal 347:f6698.
Ioannidis, J. P. (2013b) Discovery can be a nuisance, replication is science, implementation matters. Frontiers in Genetics 4:33.
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C., Nosek, B., Percie du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017) A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour 1:0021.


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed