On a scale of 1-5, how prevalent do you think the problem of result misinterpretation is in your field?

Answer Explanations

• 3

  user-411596
   This problem is compounded by factors such as complex medical language, communication gaps, and inherent limitations in testing methods. 
• 5

  user-887652
  My field exists primarily to confirm its biases.
• 2

  user-536777
  I think professionals in general are capable to make a good interpretation on our field.
• 2

  user-876062
   The pressure to publish novel findings can lead researchers to overstate the significance of their results or ignore contradictory evidence. This can distort the scientific record and mislead other researchers. 
• 3

  user-444481
  Result misinterpretation is a huge problem in our field; in fact, many researchers report that they experience it quite often. This is so often the case because the nature of the work that we do involves the use of complicated research techniques and the data collected is seldom in black and white. Original studies might have exaggerated conclusions, lack crucial control variables, or make extra conclusions that are not backed up by its data. Furthermore, the pressure (for instance, application for grant renewals), to produce new and highly relevant findings might contribute to overstating the significance or, on the contrary, underemphasizing the study’s limitations. Although our field has processes through which such misinterpretation can be detected and corrected, such as peer review and replication research, the phenomenon is still active and needs consistent monitoring and training of researchers.
• 2

  user-837221
  the immune system is complex, thus misinterpretation of results can happen (i know of one case where the interpretation resulted in a Nobel prize, and sent the whole field down an interesting but ultimately not very useful rabbit hole).  Nevertheless, i believe that, at least in basic immunology (rather than medically oriented immunology), most scientists try very hard to interpret their results correctly.
• 4

  user-655473
  Heavy competition between researchers in increasing the citation of their articles and publishing more articles takes the researcher's useful time and prevents the researcher from better understanding and accurate and correct interpretation of his research results. And like a crooked stone in the building of a house, affects the final output of the article.
• 3

  user-207191
  using wrong statistical analysis; failure to consider the power of the analysis.
• 1

  user-219504
  Most research papers in my field are written with the collaboration of senior workers and they correct misinterpretations, if any. So by the time the paper is published, we hardly see such flaws.
• 5

  user-465679
  The most of authors have no accurate and complete knowledge of biostatistical models/analysis, which cause significant misinterpretation of outcomes in epidemiology research.
• 3

  user-35552
  Misinterpretation of research findings in health science occurs frequently. This can be attributed to several factors:
  
  1. **Broad Nature of the Field**: Health science covers a wide range of topics and specializations, making it difficult for individuals to have in-depth knowledge of all areas. This can lead to misunderstandings or oversimplifications of research results.
  
  2. **Lack of Contextual Understanding**: Without a deep understanding of the specific context in which a study was conducted, it is easy to misinterpret its findings. Context includes the population studied, the methods used, and the specific health conditions addressed.
  
  3. **Insufficient Teamwork**: Effective interpretation of research often requires collaboration among experts from different disciplines. When teamwork is lacking, individual biases and limited perspectives can result in incorrect conclusions or the misapplication of findings.
  
  These factors highlight the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and continuous education in accurately interpreting and applying health science research.
• 5

  user-937607
  I am a statistician and misinterpretation of results from statistical analysis is prevalent across most scientific fields in my opinion.
• 2

  user-399994
  Scientists feel stressed and need to publish as quickly as possible. Some indicators try to evaluate scientists based on their publication rate and ranking. This makes researchers feel a strong need to publish a large number of articles without paying much attention to their quality, which can sometimes lead them to make misinterpretations.
• 4

  user-8496
  I think in many cases there is a bias going into the work and therefore the interpretation of the results is skewed based on that bias.  We need to return to pure hypothesis approaches.
• 2

  user-156962
  Some misinterpretations may occasionally occur - or particular aspects may be misinterpreted. But mostly the observations stand.
• 1

  user-97558
  In the era of AI some persons with compromised character are increasingly involved in results falsification.
• 2

  user-29979
  Because PhD students have not had a good education
• 3

  user-645871
  Yes, very often selection bias is present
• 4

  user-776436
  Over interpretation is a common occurrence in an attempt to add gravitas to the work. Reviewers/editors do a poor job in limiting interpretation to the data presented.
• 3

  user-542548
  There is some 'misinterpretation' (i.e., intentionally concluding data show something the data clearly does not) but the bigger problem is more 'overinterpretation' with discussions coupling the data with suppositions that, were to be true, might mean adverse outcomes. Conclusions then include the data, paired with the hypothetical to result in a potential adverse outcome requiring further research. The hypothetical and potential parts are rarely included lay press summaries and rarer still the researchers correcting the reports.            
• 3

  user-496176

  Currently, the problem of misinterpretation of research results in my field is quite widespread, because experimental scientific results are obtained by the author over a long period of time, while the reader may not understand the meaning of the results when reading the article.

  
  
• 5

  user-561710
  even coauthors will misinterpret things and i will tell them but they will just submit it as is.
• 2

  JonF
  The problem is alternative interpretation of results
• 3

  user-457926
   The Biochemistry-Toxicology field faces a moderate prevalence of result misinterpretation due to factors such as data complexity, statistical challenges, interdisciplinary nature, publication pressure, and evolving standards. The complexity of data, the need for accurate statistical analysis, and the interdisciplinary nature of the field can lead to misinterpretation. Miscommunication and differing terminologies among specialists can also contribute to misinterpretation. Publication pressure can lead to overinterpretation or selective reporting, while evolving standards can cause outdated methods or failure to adapt to new practices. Addressing these issues through training, collaboration, and peer review can help reduce the frequency and impact of result misinterpretation.
• 2

  user-683654
  Most scientific results are not difficult to interpret. 
• 4

  user-253626
  As a reviewer and academic editor for several journals, I have encountered numerous manuscripts that make misleading or false claims about their research findings. These instances often involve exaggerated results, selective reporting, or misinterpretation of data. Such practices undermine the credibility of scholarly work and can mislead readers, ultimately impacting the integrity of academic publishing. It is crucial for editors and reviewers to diligently scrutinize manuscripts to ensure that claims are substantiated by the data and accurately presented. This vigilance helps maintain the quality and reliability of published research.
• 1

  user-688034
  Computational molecular physics - experts in the field are aware of risk of results misinterpretation. 
• 4

  user-678105
  Lower quality of people receiving PhDs today due to reduced concern for excellence at most universities.
• 3

  user-935064
  I work in two related disciplines, ecology and ecotoxicology.  Ecology has in my career careened from one paradigm to another.  In the 1980-90s, for example, much emphasis was given to energetics.  Many authors forced their interpretatoin of data into the energetics paradigm resulting in partial, even skewed conclusions.  The last couple decades have rightly been dominated by climate change.  Consequently, authors tend to invoke causality of climate change without considering alternative explanations.  In ecotoxicology, too much emphasis is placed on single chemical agents resulting in dismissal or not even considering dynamic ecological processes that are influenced by multiple stressors ranging across biological factors, other chemicals, and physical influences.  There is good work being done in each field, but too many marginal efforts are published.
• 4

  user-525512
  Many fields involve intricate experimental designs and sophisticated data analysis techniques, increasing the potential for errors in interpretation.
• 3

  user-957551
  I daily read toxicology papers (including environmental toxicology, exposure assessment, hazard characterization, risk assessment) mostly focused on any pesticide.  I see countless papers claiming they are testing at environmental exposure levels, but they are actually quite high, sometimes orders of magnitude greater than the environmental residue chemistry has documented.  Furthermore, nearly none of these papers, especially dealing with mammalian toxicology, actually read and/or cite EPA regulatory decision documents that has modeled likely exposures, not to mention developed NOAELs, RfDs, and PADs with detailed explanations for these decisions.  The misinterpretation is typically in the form of ignoring no effect at lowest doses tested (if more than one dose is used) and just talking about high dose effects (and not commenting on whether that dose is anywhere near environmental exposures), conflating hazard characterization with risk assessment, not proposing any adverse outcome pathway beyond what we know the actual biochemical mechanism of these pesticides are, ignoring the effect of non-specific binding (and thus forgetting everything they learned about the law of mass action and why kinetics theory is important), and basically ending in hyperbolic alarmist conclusions.  Chemical epidemiological studies of pesticides are some of the most frequent misinterpretations, completely ignoring the magnitude of an odds ratio and its confidence intervals as long as they get a significant p-value for any independent variable they purport to have measured (most never measure actual exposure doing bio monitoring, but I will admit we see more biomonitoring now than in decades past owing to programs like the CDC biomonitoring efforts.  Enough said.
• 3

  user-130453
  I would see drafts of papers with misinterpretations in the Discussion section. Good that we have perr-review in scientific publications.
• 3

  user-368556
  It is half half, and not all publications has  misinterpreted results.
• 4

  user-858214
  a lot of my colleagues, even on decision making positions, do not have strong background in Math and Logic. For this reason, their statements, based mostly on statistical evaluation, are often incorrect, even after publication in very reputable journals
• 4

  user-809367
  Many scientist do not spend enough time to analyse others' work and studies, they often think that in few minutes something can be understood which is bad for scientific research
• 2

  user-803407
  Very rare due to peer review process, but young journals invite poor peer reviewers and may allow some result misinterpretation due to lack of experience.
• 1

  user-532952
  I am employed by the University  of Pretoria and UNISA in South Africa and EVERYTHING has to go through committees and expert evaluations. It takes AGES  to publish and members of committees have regular meetings to check all scientific outputs: from the planning stage.
  
  
• 2

  user-987379
  As a scientist, if your published work is misinterpreted, is because the writing is not a very good quality.
• 4

  user-480186
  In fact, I don´´t know exactly how prevalent it is. However, given the growing amount of data acquired  (due to powerful technical tools) it is getting more and more difficult to understand reasons, causal relationships and consequences, i.e., to correctly interprent the data. 
• 3

  user-512616
  Misinterpretation can be a major problem if data is not confirmed. If results are correct misinterpretation remains a matter of confirmation through other experiments or groups. 
• 3

  user-38414
  Sometimes researchers don't really want to see the result they got and try to salvage their hypothesis ignoring part of the results.
• 3

  user-49529
  The number of investigations is increasing, but the truth is that there are, on the one hand, investigations with very ingenious designs and with a great deployment of techniques and equipment, but that the results are sometimes not well used, or are only limited to discussions, too poor.
• 3

  user-228624
  SOMETIMES IF  THE RESULTS ARE INTERPRETED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT STASTICALLY LITERATE AS SOMEONE PEOPLE ARE NOT COMPETENT WITH STATS. SOMETIMES RESEARCHERS MAY WANT TO PURSUE THEIR OWN INTEREST WITH THE RESULTS
• 4

  user-320876
  Misinterpretations in the scientific fields of cancer biology, age-induced chronic diseases, and vaccine sciences often arise from the reductionist approaches adopted by decision-makers in government and academia. Such approaches have led to increased chaos, confusion, and ongoing controversies in the understanding and interpretation of complex data within multistep biological processes. My recent articles and books underscore the significant lack of a systematic method for studying the early stages of disease development, which is essential for effective treatment, reversal, and proper drug development.

  
  

  Decision-makers in these areas tend to be part of a closed group, influenced by personal connections, with a primary goal of maintaining authority and managing taxpayer-funded projects, while overseeing public health. For instance, the NIH, founded over eighty years ago to enhance public health and prevent diseases, has not succeeded in improving health outcomes in America, which remain the poorest among developed nations, despite healthcare investments surpassing $50 trillion.
• 2

  user-387320
  In clinical endocrinology, it is rather difficult to misinterpretate results when good efficacy outcome measures are adopted, relying on solid biochemical and hormonal basis.
• 3

  user-915
  This problem depend widely on the expert's experience and judgment, but now it becomes not frequent due to the involvement of modern computation and modeling softwares. 
• 3

  user-156295
  I gave it a 3 because I have found this to be a problem at the very start of my 40 plus years of experience.  Study authors are inherently biased and some are very much so and will "oversell" their work.  Peer review is suppose to counteract this but "friendly" reviewers get selected all of the time and can often be of like mind in terms of the significance of their field.  The process of peer review  can be insestuous.
• 2

  user-442723
  Many trials are trying to show results that are in favour of the targeted drug. After many years of it’s utilization on patients we stop using these drugs
• 3

  user-471155
  Most cases of result interpretation are already predetermined and this does not allow the subjection of results to proper test
• 3

  user-583550
  There is a potential to misinterpret information or results, as majority of the scientific community is in difficulty to understand the medi al literature and statistics, particularly in resource limited countries.
• 3

  user-555078
  I can say. I do not have the data to make conclusion 
• 4

  user-58000
  Misinterpretation of data have a great impact on the overall acceptance of the article. Data interpretation with an expert along with a detailed explanation by the researchers is very important to make sure that the available data is interpreted in the right direction and utilized accordingly.
• 4

  user-412279
  Lots of biological experiments don't confirm with usual statistical methods. The choice of multiple comparisons are misleading sometimes in published papers.
• 5

  user-902854
  PIs will look at data out of context and use this to support their hypothesis without fully vetting the results.
• 3

  user-548646
  I think result misinterpretation in Medical education is significant
• 3

  user-258842
  Some results are assessed subjectively so many articles that rely on VAS present different results