In the absence of good data or research results, thinking (even uncommon common sense) can prove to be surprisingly valuable. Researchers are suggesting that a good portion of research is wrong (of course, the researchers making this statement overlook the irony of a similar critique leveled at their own theory).
From the article: “Dr Ioannidis based his earlier argument about incorrect research partly on a study of 49 papers in leading journals that had been cited by more than 1,000 other scientists. They were, in other words, well-regarded research. But he found that, within only a few years, almost a third of the papers had been refuted by other studies. For the idea of the winner’s curse to hold, papers published in less-well-known journals should be more reliable; but that has not yet been established.
The group’s more general argument is that scientific research is so difficult—the sample sizes must be big and the analysis rigorous—that most research may end up being wrong. And the “hotter” the field, the greater the competition is and the more likely it is that published research in top journals could be wrong.”
As information and knowledge continue to develop more rapidly (note the rising contributions of China to scientific journals in relation to EU and US), research results will continue to be best viewed with an understanding that “it’s all in a state of flux”.