High-throughput analysis suggests differences in journal false discovery rate by subject area and impact factor but not open access status.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A low replication rate has been reported in some scientific areas motivating the creation of resource intensive collaborations to estimate the replication rate by repeating individual studies. The substantial resources required by these projects limits the number of studies that can be repeated and consequently the generalizability of the findings. We extend the use of a method from Jager and Leek to estimate the false discovery rate for 94 journals over a 5-year period using p values from over 30,000 abstracts enabling the study of how the false discovery rate varies by journal characteristics.

Results

We find that the empirical false discovery rate is higher for cancer versus general medicine journals (p = 9.801E-07, 95% CI: 0.045, 0.097; adjusted mean false dis

SUBMITTER: Hall LM 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7724881 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature