How to Make More Published Research True

@article{Ioannidis2014HowTM,
  title={How to Make More Published Research True},
  author={John P. A. Ioannidis},
  journal={PLoS Medicine},
  year={2014},
  volume={11}
}
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 

Tables from this paper

Is most published research really false?
TLDR
The range of definitions of false discoveries in the scientific literature are described and the philosophical, statistical, and experimental evidence for each type of false discovery is summarized.
The Problem of False Discovery: Many Scientific Results Can't Be Replicated, Leading to Serious Questions about What's True and False in the World of Research
Is there a Cheshire Cat in science? One might believe so, given the many published scientific discoveries that cannot be independently reproduced. The ?replication crisis? in science has become a
Failure to Replicate: Sound the Alarm
  • J. Ioannidis
  • Psychology
    Cerebrum : the Dana forum on brain science
  • 2015
TLDR
The most comprehensive investigation ever done about the rate and predictors of reproducibility in social and cognitive sciences has found that regardless of the analytic method or criteria used, fewer than half of the original findings were successfully replicated.
Reproducibility of Published Research
TLDR
The head of the European Commission's Scientific Advice Mechanism Unit gives the view of the Head of that Unit on the reproducibility of published research.
The Research Reproducibility Crisis and Economics of Science
We provide a brief summary of two areas where cross-fertilization across economics and other disciplines is likely to have far-reaching benefits. The increasing concern about research reproducibility
We can shift academic culture through publishing choices
TLDR
I explain exploitative and ethical publishing practices, highlighting choices researchers can make right now to stop exploiting ourselves and discriminating against others.
Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices
TLDR
A map of ongoing efforts is provided and plans for connecting the multiple meta-research efforts across science worldwide are discussed.
Reproducibility literature analysis - a federal information professional perspective
This article examines a cross-section of literature and other resources to reveal common reproducibility issues faced by stakeholders regardless of subject area or focus. We identify a variety of
Counting publications and citations is not just irrelevant: it is an incentive that subverts the impact of clinical research
TLDR
This work aims to draw the sport and exercise medicine community’s attention to the concept of research impact, highlight existing ways of assessingResearch impact, and outline the challenges of measuring research impact.
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 81 REFERENCES
Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses?
Peter Gøtzsche and John Ioannidis argue that it is not always sensible to include subject experts as authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Research grants: Conform and be funded
Too many US authors of the most innovative and influential papers in the life sciences do not receive NIH funding, contend Joshua M. Nicholson and John P. A. Ioannidis.
Who's afraid of peer review?
Dozens of open-access journals targeted in an elaborate Science sting accepted a spoof research article, raising questions about peer-review practices in much of the open-access world.
More time for research: Fund people not projects
TLDR
John P. A. Ioannidis proposes ways to save scientists from spending all their time writing grants, as well as ideas to improve the quality of research.
Research on peer review and biomedical publication: furthering the quest to improve the quality of reporting.
TLDR
This issue of JAMA includes 3 reports1- 3 first presented at the Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication in September 2013, which substantially broadened to include all aspects of biomedical publication.
Scientific Utopia
TLDR
Strategies for improving scientific practices and knowledge accumulation are developed that account for ordinary human motivations and biases and can reduce the persistence of false findings.
Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science
John Ioannidis and colleagues argue that the current system of publication in biomedical research provides a distorted view of the reality of scientific data.
Disclosure of Researcher Contributions: A Study of Original Research Articles in The Lancet
TLDR
This study assessed researchers' published self-reports of their contributions to original research articles in The Lancet, and examined how actual contributions correlated with the order of names on the byline, fulfilled the criteria of authorship as defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (the Vancouver Group), and differed between the bylines and the acknowledgments section.
Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility.
Francis S. Collins and Lawrence A. Tabak discuss initiatives that the US National Institutes of Health is exploring to restore the self-correcting nature of preclinical research.
“Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences
TLDR
These results support the scientific status of the social sciences against claims that they are completely subjective, by showing that, when they adopt a scientific approach to discovery, they differ from the natural sciences only by a matter of degree.
...
...