We know that the socio-economic field is flawed in a number of ways. Most economists
assume that these flaws do not have a great impact on the outcome. But, if we analyze some
of the flaws, we understand that their impacts can be catastrophic, in the sense that a large
proportion of these economic findings are likely to be wrong.

There is growing concern that a large number of recently published research studies are not
correct. Why Economists get published research papers when most of them are irrelevant?

There are different reasons for it, such as:

Study Power, Conflicts of Interests, and Biases

Study power, conflicts of interests, and biases are the main leading causes as to why many
published research studies are not correct. Bias can involve manipulation in the results of
findings or being selective in choosing the findings. In other words, if economists want it to
be true, they will find an option to make it correct.

Flexibility of a Study Design

The design of the study also plays an important role in the outcome. The more flexible the
research study is, the more likely the findings of the study aren’t as concrete as compared to
other study designs.

The Process of Testing a Hypothesis

The process of testing a hypothesis is another critical factor leading to incorrectly published
research studies. In simple terms, the process of testing a hypothesis is usually associated
with the flexibility of a study design and biases.

Most Published Research studies may not Correct When Small Sample Sizes
are used

The significance of the sample size used in a published research study is the major key to the
validity of the study. Studies in which large sample sizes are used are more beneficial and
authentic because studies are comparatively approximate to the population as a whole.
Studies with a small sample size often don’t demonstrate the whole story.

Publish or Perish Factor

Academic institutions frequently utilize the number of publications to a researcher’s credit as
the measure of competency. Researcher scholars who publish infrequently may find
themselves out of contentions for many training positions. Thus, there is a huge pressure on
them to publish. If researchers face the pressure of publishing papers to keep their jobs, are
they going with a bad choice under pressure for getting published?

Final words

Economists belonging to multiple schools of thought (Classical economists, Neo-classical
economists, behavioral economists, or Austrian economists) write papers and make
theoretical arguments based on most of the experiences outside of what China contributes to
the global economy. So, if they ignore China’s effects and other ground realities, their studies
cannot be relevant for the modern-age economy.