<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-06-02T21:35:58Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:riuma.uma.es:10630/30439" metadataPrefix="rdf">https://riuma.uma.es/rest/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:riuma.uma.es:10630/30439</identifier><datestamp>2026-02-03T10:53:14Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_10630_2254</setSpec><setSpec>col_10630_37953</setSpec></header><metadata><rdf:RDF xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xmlns:ds="http://dspace.org/ds/elements/1.1/" xmlns:ow="http://www.ontoweb.org/ontology/1#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/rdf/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/rdf/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/rdf.xsd">
   <ow:Publication rdf:about="oai:riuma.uma.es:10630/30439">
      <dc:title>Multiplicity Eludes Peer Review: The Case of COVID-19 Research.</dc:title>
      <dc:creator>Gutiérrez-Hernández, Oliver</dc:creator>
      <dc:creator>García Fernández, Luis Ventura</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>Geografía médica</dc:subject>
      <dc:subject>Epidemiología</dc:subject>
      <dc:subject>Invasiones biológicas</dc:subject>
      <dc:subject>COVID-19</dc:subject>
      <dc:description>CC BY</dc:description>
      <dc:description>Multiplicity arises when data analysis involves multiple simultaneous inferences, increasing the chance of spurious findings. It is a widespread problem frequently ignored by researchers. In this paper, we perform an exploratory analysis of the Web of Science database for COVID-19 observational studies. We examined 100 top-cited COVID-19 peer-reviewed articles based on p-values, including up to 7100 simultaneous tests, with 50% including >34 tests, and 20% > 100 tests. We found that the larger the number of tests performed, the larger the number of significant results (r = 0.87, p &lt; 10−6). The number of p-values in the abstracts was not related to the number of p-values in the papers. However, the highly significant results (p &lt; 0.001) in the abstracts were strongly correlated (r = 0.61, p &lt; 10−6) with the number of p &lt; 0.001 significances in the papers. Furthermore, the abstracts included a higher proportion of significant results (0.91 vs. 0.50), and 80% reported only significant results. Only one reviewed paper addressed multiplicity-induced type I error inflation, pointing to potentially spurious results bypassing the peer-review process. We conclude the need to pay special attention to the increased chance of false discoveries in observational studies, including non-replicated striking discoveries with a potentially large social impact. We propose some easy-to-implement measures to assess and limit the effects of multiplicity.</dc:description>
      <dc:date>2024-02-14T10:22:35Z</dc:date>
      <dc:date>2024-02-14T10:22:35Z</dc:date>
      <dc:date>2024</dc:date>
      <dc:date>2021-09-03</dc:date>
      <dc:type>journal article</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>Gutiérrez-Hernández, O.; García, L.V. Multiplicity Eludes Peer Review: The Case of COVID-19 Research. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9304. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179304</dc:identifier>
      <dc:identifier>https://hdl.handle.net/10630/30439</dc:identifier>
      <dc:identifier>10.3390/ijerph18179304</dc:identifier>
      <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
      <dc:rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</dc:rights>
      <dc:rights>open access</dc:rights>
      <dc:rights>Atribución 4.0 Internacional</dc:rights>
      <dc:publisher>MDPI</dc:publisher>
   </ow:Publication>
</rdf:RDF>
</metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>