Some subscribers to MathEdCC might be interested in a recent post "Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" [Hake (2012a)]. The abstract reads:

**********************************************
ABSTRACT: In "The Randomistas' War On Global Poverty - ERRATUM & ADDENDUM" [Hake (2012b] at <http://bit.ly/YfMESg> I pointed to:
(a) a "PLoS Medicine" article by John Ioannidis (2005) <http://bit.ly/Vb1u70> titled "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" at <http://1.usa.gov/YxUxkL>, brought to my attention by Guy Brandenberg; and
(b) a good discussion of the important work of Ioannidis in the "Atlantic": "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science" by David Freedman (2010) at <http://bit.ly/11aAmt0>. Freedman wrote that Ioannidis (2005):

(1) claims that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed;

(2) states that randomized controlled trials. . . . ended up being wrong some of the time;

(3) laid out a detailed mathematical proof that, assuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time;

(4) is the most downloaded article in the history of "PLoS Medicine."

BTW: Freedman claims that meta-research experts have confirmed that similar issues distort research in all fields of science, from physics to economics (where DeLong& Lang at <http://bit.ly/SpNMww> showed how a remarkably consistent paucity of strong evidence in published economics studies made it unlikely that ANY of them were right).
 **********************************************
To access the complete 9 kB post please click on <http://bit.ly/Ve4Qnk>.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>
Academia: <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>
Blog: <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>
GooglePlus: <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>
Twitter: <http://bit.ly/juvd52>

"It is not enough to observe, experiment, theorize, calculate and communicate; we must also argue, criticize, debate, expound, summarize, and otherwise transform the information that we have obtained individually into reliable, well established, public knowledge."
    John Ziman. 1969. "Information, Communication, Knowledge," Nature 224: 318-324;
      abstract online at <http://bit.ly/cNPB1d>.
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 02 Dec 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. "Re: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/Ve4Qnk>. Post of 02 Dec 2012 11:39:22-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/YnrrWA> with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2012b. "The Randomistas' War On Global Poverty - ERRATUM & ADDENDUM," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/YfMESg>. Post of 30 Nov 2012 12:15:33-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/11c5w3e> with a provision for comments.