Based on theoretical reasoning it has been suggested that the reliability of findings published in the scientific literature decreases with the popularity of a research field. Here we provide empirical support for this prediction. We evaluate published statements on protein interactions with data from high-throughput experiments. We find evidence for two distinctive effects. First, with increasing popularity of the interaction partners, individual statements in the literature become more erroneous. Second, the overall evidence on an interaction becomes increasingly distorted by multiple independent testing.

Investigators of scientific misconduct have had their hands full in recent months. So far this year, a regional hospital in western Massachusetts has announced the discovery of what may be the biggest case of research fraud in history, scientists in Texas have used a new computer algorithm to uncover thousands of apparently plagiarized papers in peer-reviewed journals and a congressional subcommittee questioned the consistency of institutional and independent review boards (IRBs) that oversee clinical trials