Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-t6st2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T02:17:59.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why replication has more scientific value than original discovery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2018

John P. A. Ioannidis
John P. A. Ioannidis*
Affiliation:
Departments of Medicine, Health Research and Policy, and Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305; Department of Statistics, Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, 94305; Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. jioannid@stanford.eduhttps://profiles.stanford.edu/john-ioannidis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e137
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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 2:6–10. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2(8):e124.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. (2008) Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 19:640–48.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. (2013a) Implausible results in human nutrition research. British Medical Journal 347:f6698.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. (2013b) Discovery can be a nuisance, replication is science, implementation matters. Frontiers in Genetics 4:33.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar