2
SciPoll 647: Misinterpretation of Results in Scientific Publishing
Have you observed an increase or decrease in result misinterpretation over the past 10 years by study authors?
Results
(137 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- No changeuser-411596Misinterpretations of P-values and statistical tests have been a long-standing issue among researchers and professionals. The debate around this problem has been ongoing, especially with the replication crisis and efforts to promote good statistical conduct.
- No changeuser-887652The premises of my field are persistently faulty.
- No changeuser-536777I do not see any change on the last years.
- Slight increaseuser-876062The rise of predatory journals—publications that prioritize profit over rigorous peer review—has made it easier for flawed or misinterpreted research to be published. These journals often lack proper editorial oversight, allowing authors to publish papers without thorough scrutiny, leading to an increase in published misinterpretations.
- Slight increaseuser-444481Based on the observations, I felt that there is a slight increase in result misinterpretation due to
1) Publication bias: Expected results to be seen as positive, or as new, there is a tendency to filter out otherwise obvious methodological misinterpretations that would lead to the outcome.
2) Expertise gaps: It may not always be possible for the reviewers to have the exact specialty and knowledge to identify some of the common misinterpretations that arise in modern and more and more complex and interdisciplinary investigations. - No changeuser-837221the rabbit hole mentioned aboce (the self-non-self model) is still being used by certain branches of medicine (e.g cancer immunotherapy) as the bases of interpretations that turn out to be wrong. as immunotherapy spreads wider, it will results in more and more mis-interpretations.
- Significant increaseuser-655473As a publisher, I saw many result misinterpretation in the recent published works.
- Slight decreaseuser-219504The peer group is involved in the result presentation and publication. The increased availability and access to international publications in the same field also help to rectify the issues in understanding one's data during interpretations.
- Significant increaseuser-465679Yes, there is significant increase in misinterpretation of results, because most of scientist want the results significant according to their research objectives.
- Significant increaseuser-35552The significant increase in the misinterpretation of research findings in health science over the past decade can be attributed to several reasons:
1. **Rapid Growth of Research Publications**: The volume of published research has grown exponentially, making it difficult for practitioners and researchers to keep up with the latest findings and understand the nuances of each study.
2. **Increased Specialization**: As the field of health science becomes more specialized, researchers and practitioners often focus deeply on their niche areas. This specialization can lead to challenges in interpreting findings outside their expertise.
3. **Proliferation of Open Access and Predatory Journals**: The rise of open access and predatory journals has led to the publication of lower-quality studies with questionable methodologies, increasing the risk of misinterpretation.
4. **Complexity of Modern Research**: Advances in technology and methodologies have made modern research more complex. Interpreting these complex studies requires a high level of expertise, which may not always be available.
5. **Media and Public Miscommunication**: The media and public often misinterpret scientific findings, oversimplifying or sensationalizing results, which can lead to widespread misunderstanding.
6. **Pressure to Publish**: The academic pressure to publish frequently can lead to the rush and inadequate peer review, resulting in the dissemination of poorly understood or communicated research.
7. **Lack of Interdisciplinary Collaboration**: Effective interpretation of research findings often requires collaboration among experts from various disciplines. The lack of such collaboration can result in misinterpretation due to limited perspectives.
These factors collectively contribute to the increased misinterpretation of research findings in health science over the past decade. - Significant increaseuser-399994The researchers have been very meticulous in their interpretation, even though it would take them more time by doing many studies to be sure of what they are saying, but now it is becoming less and less frequent because there is an urgency to publish.
- No changeuser-156962Structural biology is largely self-correcting.
- Significant increaseuser-84471Due to novelties
- No changeuser-29979PhD students continue with very regular training
- Slight increaseuser-645871The growing need for publication has worsened the accuracy of data
- Significant increaseuser-542548I believe there has been a significant increase in the use of 'right-to-know' or 'Protective Principle' to justify 'overinterpreted' data to substantiate public policy. What is also growing is the number of researchers arguing it is their role to misinterpret data to support their policy positions.
- Slight increaseuser-496176
To obtain positive results in experiments, a long time and enormous efforts of the experimenter are required, while the reader only reveals the essence of the research by reading. - Significant increaseuser-561710the whole peer-review system is in disarray
- Slight increaseuser-457926The study suggests a slight decrease in result misinterpretation due to improvements in peer review, statistical training, and transparency in research. These factors help catch and correct misinterpretations before publication, reducing the likelihood of misinterpretation despite factors like increased publication rates and complexity.
- Slight increaseuser-683654The increase is small because there are even better ways of interpreting ways of interpreting scientific results including the use of artificial intelligence.
- Slight decreaseuser-688034As time goes, we are gaining more experiences, also in the area of result misinterpretation .
- Significant increaseuser-678105Misinterpretation by the press of scientific findings is rampant.
- Slight increaseuser-935064I attribute this to over-specialization such that authors may not have been exposed to holistic considerations. Silos lead to satisfying but erroneous conclusions.
- Slight increaseuser-525512As research becomes more complex and interdisciplinary, the potential for misinterpretation increases due to the need for specialized knowledge to accurately interpret results.
- Slight increaseuser-957551Those who get funded are the ones making the case to the funders that disaster is ahead; thus, every experimental design seems to have been directed by a pilot study wherein positive results are obtained at some dose, and thus the actual experiment uses that dose and never seeks a NOAEL so that the experiment actually becomes useful for risk assessment. Funding is tight, which seems correlated with my perception that the apocalyptic message that ends every abstract and discussion section has increased somewhat in frequency. But I have been studying pesticides as a faculty member at two R1 institutions for 46 years, so the issues I've expressed have always existed, but the stiff funding competition has increased frequency of "misinterpretation" somewhat.
- Slight decreaseuser-130453I see less misinterpretations. I am wondering if this may be aided by increased access of scientists to technologies for data analysis. R, for example is free when we used to pay hefty subscription fees for stat softwares.
- Significant increaseuser-858214Mostly in climatology, molecular medicine, and science history
- Slight increaseuser-809367The policy "publish or perish" impacts the quality of the publications and the revision process. In this respect, sometimes, I noticed that authors tend to show their data in a very controversial way, complicated, which renders difficult the interpretation of their meaning during publication steps. This is made with purpose, in fact the more you put in a paper, the more you write, the less a reviewer can spend that big amount of time to check everything.
- Slight increaseuser-803407Only in young journals, who advertise fast publication. This normally goes along with poor review panels.
- Slight decreaseuser-645616the peer reviewing process has improved in good quality journals in recent years
- Slight increaseuser-532952More opportunities to publish in unlisted "Scientific journals"
- No changeuser-987379Recognised journals would have addressed issues like these at the review stage. If the results and conclusions are not clear, the manuscript is not fit for publication.
- user-480186Don´t know. My horizon is too narrow to tell.
- No changeuser-150502I don't think it's the study authors that are misinterpreting.
- Significant increaseuser-512616I have seen increased misreading of papers that sustain hypotheses and explain results. My impression is that many investigators do not read carefully and sometimes read only abstracts or reviews to sustain their observations. In other cases, experimental methods are not considered essential and can produce errors.
- Slight decreaseuser-38414Some important journals have increased the amount of circumstantial information regarding a submission in order to increase reproducibility and this rose the level of the information contained in the manuscript.
- No changeuser-49529Good articles are generally published in journals with clear objectives or great prestige.
- Slight increaseuser-228624SLIGHT INCREASE DUE TO MISINTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS BY THE AUTHORS
- Slight increaseuser-320876Having spent over four decades in the medical sciences, I've observed that members of organized medicine within government, academia, and in partnership with pharmaceutical companies, major media, and 'philanthropists' have formed a cohesive group. This group has established a substantial business model focused on maintaining a society reliant on medication. Within this framework, the voices of independent scientists are often suppressed or censored by the collective influence of organized medicine. One notable instance of data misinterpretation in the past decade involves the intense propaganda and fear associated with COVID-19 lockdowns and the hurried administration of an engineered mRNA spike protein for gene therapy, marketed as a 'COVID vaccine'. This has reportedly led to a marked increase in neurodegenerative and autoimmune diseases, as well as site-specific cancers.
- Slight increaseuser-915the scientific society become more devoid of talented people.
- Significant increaseuser-442723Now we feel that regulators are some what influence by these giants
- Slight increaseuser-471155Study authors do needs proper training in the area of results interpretation
- Slight decreaseuser-583550That could be because access and training to scientific literatures and statistical skills is increasing.
- Slight decreaseuser-58000With more advanced data analytics software availability and due to increase in the current institutional awareness regarding the impact of data in real world, many programs have substantially reduced the level of misinterpretation, but still more work is required.
- No changeuser-412279I would not be able to comment on this.
- Slight increaseuser-548646As new researches are there in the market, so with passing time it is slightly increasing in my opinion.
- Slight increaseuser-258842It seems that subjective analysis is taking a bigger part of articles
- Slight increaseuser-694378Due to the use of AI, there has been an increase in result misinterpretation by study authors over the past 10 years.