» Articles » PMID: 20383332

"Positive" Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2010 Apr 13
PMID 20383332
Citations 136
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The hypothesis of a Hierarchy of the Sciences with physical sciences at the top, social sciences at the bottom, and biological sciences in-between is nearly 200 years old. This order is intuitive and reflected in many features of academic life, but whether it reflects the "hardness" of scientific research--i.e., the extent to which research questions and results are determined by data and theories as opposed to non-cognitive factors--is controversial. This study analysed 2434 papers published in all disciplines and that declared to have tested a hypothesis. It was determined how many papers reported a "positive" (full or partial) or "negative" support for the tested hypothesis. If the hierarchy hypothesis is correct, then researchers in "softer" sciences should have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases, and therefore report more positive outcomes. Results confirmed the predictions at all levels considered: discipline, domain and methodology broadly defined. Controlling for observed differences between pure and applied disciplines, and between papers testing one or several hypotheses, the odds of reporting a positive result were around 5 times higher among papers in the disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry and Economics and Business compared to Space Science, 2.3 times higher in the domain of social sciences compared to the physical sciences, and 3.4 times higher in studies applying behavioural and social methodologies on people compared to physical and chemical studies on non-biological material. In all comparisons, biological studies had intermediate values. These results suggest that the nature of hypotheses tested and the logical and methodological rigour employed to test them vary systematically across disciplines and fields, depending on the complexity of the subject matter and possibly other factors (e.g., a field's level of historical and/or intellectual development). On the other hand, these results support the scientific status of the social sciences against claims that they are completely subjective, by showing that, when they adopt a scientific approach to discovery, they differ from the natural sciences only by a matter of degree.

Citing Articles

Poor hypotheses and research waste in biology: learning from a theory crisis in psychology.

Nakagawa S, Armitage D, Froese T, Yang Y, Lagisz M BMC Biol. 2025; 23(1):33.

PMID: 39901226 PMC: 11792729. DOI: 10.1186/s12915-025-02134-w.


Time to publication for results of clinical trials.

Showell M, Cole S, Clarke M, DeVito N, Farquhar C, Jordan V Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024; 11():MR000011.

PMID: 39601300 PMC: 11600493. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub3.


Centering and flourishing: an online intervention study assessing the effects of a Christian contemplative practice on stress-reduction and human flourishing.

Rohde J, Goldy S, Graziosi M, Ferguson M, Thrul J, Yaden D BMC Psychol. 2024; 12(1):373.

PMID: 38956692 PMC: 11218060. DOI: 10.1186/s40359-024-01836-0.


Reporting Practices for Animal Studies on Peritoneal Dialysis Conducted in 2021-2023 after the Introduction of the ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines.

Witowski J, Sikorska D, Catar R Nephron. 2024; 148(11-12):785-795.

PMID: 38934165 PMC: 11651320. DOI: 10.1159/000539892.


Impact of redefining statistical significance on P-hacking and false positive rates: An agent-based model.

Fitzpatrick B, Gorman D, Trombatore C PLoS One. 2024; 19(5):e0303262.

PMID: 38753677 PMC: 11098386. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303262.


References
1.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A . Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):1149-60. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. View

2.
Kyzas P, Denaxa-Kyza D, Ioannidis J . Almost all articles on cancer prognostic markers report statistically significant results. Eur J Cancer. 2007; 43(17):2559-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.08.030. View

3.
Ioannidis J . Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2(8):e124. PMC: 1182327. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. View

4.
Breau R, Carnat T, Gaboury I . Inadequate statistical power of negative clinical trials in urological literature. J Urol. 2006; 176(1):263-6. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00505-2. View

5.
Collins H . We cannot live by scepticism alone. Nature. 2009; 458(7234):30. DOI: 10.1038/458030a. View