Journal Article

“Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences

Fanelli, Daniele

2010

Overview

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.

• Publisher: Public Library of Science,Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subject: Academic disciplines / Accountability / Analysis / Animal cognition / Astronomy / Bias / Biochemistry / Biological effects / Biological materials / Biological Science Disciplines - standards / Biology / Chemistry / Cognition / Cognitive ability / Computer Science / Discovery / Ecology / Ecology/Behavioral Ecology / Evidence-Based Healthcare/Bedside Evidence-Based Medicine / Evidence-Based Healthcare/Methods for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Studies / Evidence-Based Healthcare/Quality and Safety in Medical Practice / Evolutionary Biology / Experiments / Genetics and Genomics / Hardness (Materials) / Hierarchies / Hypotheses / Immunology / Intellectual development / Mathematics/Statistics / Mechanical properties / Mental disorders / Methods / Natural Science Disciplines - standards / Natural sciences / Particle physics / Pharmacology / Philosophers / Philosophy / Physical sciences / Physics / Power / Psychiatry / Psychology / Publications - standards / Publications - trends / Regression analysis / Research - standards / Research - trends / Research methodology / Rigour / Science / Science - classification / Science - methods / Science - standards / Science Policy / Scientific research / Scientific status / Scientists / Social psychology / Social sciences / Social Sciences - standards / Sociology / Space science / Studies / Subjectivity / Tests / Unconsciousness