<p>Thanks @Xurtio for letting me know the article.</p>

<p>For sake of completeness, the following shows the graph of interest:</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/brhSD.png" alt="enter image description here"></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Name of discipline, abbreviation used throughout the paper, sample
  size and percentage of “positive” results (i.e. papers that support a
  tested hypothesis). Classification by discipline was based on the
  Essential Science Indicators database, the hard/soft, pure/applied and
  life/non-life categories were based on previous literature (see text
  for details). Error bars represent 95% logit-derived confidence
  interval.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-30T15:09:17.193Z
why not just edit the figure into @Xurtio's answer?
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-30T23:48:03.980Z
I didn't want to presume that Xurtio would be comfortable with me doing this. I often find it useful to do the above when I get a short answer, but I think that a reader would be interested in a little more information (e.g., on stackoverflow someone gives you a clue about the answer or says what function to apply; but then you go ahead and apply it to your code and show the worked example, etc.)
Jeromy Anglim
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-30T05:42:18.137Z
2012-05-30T05:42:18.137Z
Jeromy Anglim
<p>Fanelli D (2010) “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS ONE 5(4): e10068. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010068</p>

<p><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010068">http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010068</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-30T05:27:09.153Z
2012-05-30T05:27:09.153Z
Keegan Keplinger
<p>I recently read a blog post talking about a journal article that compared the degree to which journal articles support their hypothesis. A comparison was done across disciplines, and if I recall, psychology had a higher level of acceptance than many other disciplines.</p>

<ul>
<li>Does anyone know the reference to this article about variability in supporting hypotheses in journal articles across disciplines?</li>
</ul>

<reference-request>
What article reported variability in supporting hypotheses across disciplines?
Jeromy Anglim
# What article reported variability in supporting hypotheses across disciplines?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-05-29)

I recently read a blog post talking about a journal article that compared the degree to which journal articles support their hypothesis. A comparison was done across disciplines, and if I recall, psychology had a higher level of acceptance than many other disciplines.

* Does anyone know the reference to this article about variability in supporting hypotheses in journal articles across disciplines?

**Tags:** reference-request


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2012-05-30. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

Fanelli D (2010) “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS ONE 5(4): e10068. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010068

<http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010068>


---

### Answer by username_0 on 2012-05-30. Score: 4

Thanks @Xurtio for letting me know the article.

For sake of completeness, the following shows the graph of interest:

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/brhSD.png)

> Name of discipline, abbreviation used throughout the paper, sample
> size and percentage of “positive” results (i.e. papers that support a
> tested hypothesis). Classification by discipline was based on the
> Essential Science Indicators database, the hard/soft, pure/applied and
> life/non-life categories were based on previous literature (see text
> for details). Error bars represent 95% logit-derived confidence
> interval.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: why not just edit the figure into @Xurtio's answer?  
> **username_0**: I didn't want to presume that Xurtio would be comfortable with me doing this. I often find it useful to do the above when I get a short answer, but I think that a reader would be interested in a little more information (e.g., on stackoverflow someone gives you a clue about the answer or says what function to apply; but then you go ahead and apply it to your code and show the worked example, etc.)  

---

