How science works
2 papers · 2004–2005 · oldest first
Start here
Research about research: whether published findings hold up, and what happens when you try to publish the numbers on people's performance. Both papers here are about the machinery of a field rather than about the world, and both conclude that the machinery shapes the answers more than anyone would like.
Ours, not the authors' — written for a reader who does not work in this field. The papers' own words are the quotes on each paper's page.
The shape of the field
-
2004
The legacy of Bristol: public disclosure of individual surgeons' results (with 5 co-authors)
David Spiegelhalter · in the archive · 5 korrents
After Bristol, heart surgeons set out to publish each one's raw death rates inside very wide safety bands to show they are safe, not to help patients pick a surgeon.
-
2005
Ioannidis, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (PLoS Medicine)
John Ioannidis · in the archive · 6 korrents
Most published research findings are false because studies are often too small, effects too weak, methods too flexible, and too many teams race for positive results.
2 of these 2 papers are in this archive, with quotes you can check — those are the linked ones. The rest are here so the timeline is the field's shape rather than ours: they carry no quote, no link and no claim beyond their title, authors and year, and the one-line notes are ours, about what each paper did rather than what anyone believes.