Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
John P. A. Ioannidis (/ ˌ iː ə ˈ n iː d ɪ s / EE-ə-NEE-diss; Greek: Ιωάννης Ιωαννίδης, pronounced [i.oˈanis i.oaˈniðis]; born August 21, 1965) is a Greek-American physician-scientist, writer and Stanford University professor who has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, and clinical research.
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" is a 2005 essay written by John Ioannidis, a professor at the Stanford School of Medicine, and published in PLOS Medicine. [1] It is considered foundational to the field of metascience.
The science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators is a multidimensional ranking of the world's scientists produced since 2015 by a team of researchers led by John P. A. Ioannidis at Stanford. [1] [2]
It was initially introduced in 2016 by the Greek-American metascience researcher John Ioannidis at Stanford University and his collaborators, R. Klavans R. and K. Boyack. [6] In 2019 an improved version of it [ 7 ] was announced in the scientific journal PLOS Biology under the paper title "Updated science-wide author databases of standardized ...
The Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) is a research center within the Stanford School of Medicine that aims to improve reproducibility by studying how science is practiced and published and developing better ways for the scientific community to operate. [1] [2] It is headed by John Ioannidis and Steven Goodman. [3]
The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web.
It also funded the launch of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford at Stanford University run by Ioannidis and medical scientist Steven Goodman to study ways to improve scientific research. [209] It also provided funding for the AllTrials initiative led in part by medical scientist Ben Goldacre. [209]
John Ioannidis (2005), "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" [6] In 1966, an early meta-research paper examined the statistical methods of 295 papers published in ten high-profile medical journals. It found that, "in almost 73% of the reports read ... conclusions were drawn when the justification for these conclusions was invalid."