On a meta level, I've always wondered why we take a paper about most findings being false as clearly correct.
This is a fair question. I think the reasons the Ioannidis paper was persuasive are that
1) Ioannidis replicated earlier results about the lack of replication of most research reports,
and
2) Ioannidis "showed the work" for how possible, and indeed likely, it is for an effect size that permits a false-positive finding to be published, under reasonable assumptions about the prevalence of false-positive findings and publishing practices. Most scientists were vaguely aware of lack of replication years before anyone heard of Ioannidis, but not many scientists were fully aware of how readily a false-positive finding can be published.
Comments
On a meta level, I've always wondered why we take a paper about most findings being false as clearly correct.
This is a fair question. I think the reasons the Ioannidis paper was persuasive are that
1) Ioannidis replicated earlier results about the lack of replication of most research reports,
and
2) Ioannidis "showed the work" for how possible, and indeed likely, it is for an effect size that permits a false-positive finding to be published, under reasonable assumptions about the prevalence of false-positive findings and publishing practices. Most scientists were vaguely aware of lack of replication years before anyone heard of Ioannidis, but not many scientists were fully aware of how readily a false-positive finding can be published.