Why I disagree with Andrew Gelman's critique of my paper about the rate of false discoveries in the medical literature

With a colleague, I wrote a paper titled, “Empirical estimates suggest most published medical research is true” which we quietly posted to ArXiv a few days ago. I posted to the ArXiv in the interest of open science and because we didn’t want to delay the dissemination of our approach during the long review process. I didn’t email anyone about the paper or talk to anyone about it, except my friends here locally.

Does NIH fund innovative work? Does Nature care about publishing accurate articles?

_Editor’s Note: In a recent post we disagreed with a Nature article claiming that NIH doesn’t support innovation. Our colleague Steven Salzberg actually looked at the data and wrote the guest post below. _ Nature published an article last month with the provocative title “Research grants: Conform and be funded.” The authors looked at papers with over 1000 citations to find out whether scientists “who do the most influential scientific work get funded by the NIH.