It might have been surprising at the time, but it's certainly unsurprising in light of the replication crisis. We now know that most findings don't replicate. Anyone who continues to be surprised by the most likely outcome needs to update their priors.
Biostatisticians Jager and Leek criticized the model as being based on justifiable but arbitrary assumptions rather than empirical data, and did an investigation of their own which calculated that the false positive rate in biomedical studies was estimated to be around 14%, not over 50% as Ioannidis asserted.
Comments
It might have been surprising at the time, but it's certainly unsurprising in light of the replication crisis. We now know that most findings don't replicate. Anyone who continues to be surprised by the most likely outcome needs to update their priors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Fi...
From your link: