The work of John P.A. Ioannidis (see Ioannidis (2005), Ioannidis (2016), Ioannidis (2022)) and the book by Stuart Ritchie (see Ritchie (2020)), among others, make it clear that many things in research are not really running optimally.
This repository contains short peer reviews of selected scientific articles from the field of (Bio-)Medicine in the form of "open final-version" comments; see Ross-Hellauer (2017). The aim of these peer reviews is to address methodological and statistical weaknesses and thus hopefully contribute to improving the situation in (bio-)medical research.
All my documents provided here are subject to the DPPL v3 license (https://www.hbz-nrw.de/produkte/open-access/lizenzen/dppl/dppl/DPPL_v3_en_11-2008); see also LICENSE.pdf.
Ioannidis J.P.A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
Ioannidis J.P.A. (2016). Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful. PLoS Med. 13(6):e1002049. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049.
Ioannidis J.P.A. (2022). Educating educators on research on research. Perspect Med Educ. 11(3):137-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00662-z.
Ritchie S. (2021). Science Fictions. The Epidemic of Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science. Vintage, 1st edition. https://www.sciencefictions.org/.
Ross-Hellauer T. (2017) What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; peer review: 4 approved]. F1000Research, 6:588 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2)