Poor replication validity of biomedical association studies reported by newspapers¶
Dumas-Mallet. (2017). Poor replication validity of biomedical association studies reported by newspapers. PLOS ONE.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Domain-specific¶
- Agenda Distortion
- so audience-perceived risk follows coverage rather than severity. Science communication. Press attention to research findings tracks novelty and journal prestige far more reliably than effect size or replication status
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“Whereas 234 newspaper articles covered the 35 initial studies that were later disconfirmed”
- so audience-perceived risk follows coverage rather than severity. Science communication. Press attention to research findings tracks novelty and journal prestige far more reliably than effect size or replication status
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This work's DOI is recorded above but has not been resolved against an external catalogue, so nothing here confirms the work exists.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:f902e54abfce · see in the full table