#ScienceCommunication
Reporting Errors in a Publication: A Case Study on ‘Frontiers in Public Health’
20 March 2025
BY SCOTT M. GRAFFIUS | ScottGraffius.com
Any updates after this article is published will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section at the end of the article.
Introduction
Errors in published works can unleash a cascade of profound effects: they corrupt the well of knowledge, deceive those seeking truth, and shatter the foundation of credibility. As explored in the widely read article on reporting errors, taking action to address such issues plays a pivotal role in ensuring the accuracy and integrity of knowledge.
But what happens when errors go unaddressed, even after being reported with detailed evidence? This article presents a case study from Graffius’ own experience, where a publication in Frontiers in Public Health mischaracterized his research on the lifespan (half-life) of social media posts (2024 edition) and incorrectly cited his work. Despite reporting these issues to the lead author and publisher, the response—or lack thereof in this case—reveals the challenges and persistence required to uphold research integrity. Through this case study, this article illustrates the error reporting process, the importance of follow-through, and the lessons learned.
Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' Research
When content is published on social media platforms, relevance and engagement have a limited lifespan. Most posts receive half of their total engagement (such as likes, shares, and comments) relatively soon, with the remainder spread out over a comparatively longer period. Said differently, plotting engagement against time typically reveals a distribution where the peak engagement occurs early, with a long tail of diminishing interaction, resembling a positively skewed unimodal distribution.
Given the above, an advantageous, objective metric for social media posts is half-life. It’s the time it takes for a post to receive half of its total engagement. Data can help inform strategic and tactical decisions, such as the frequency and scheduling of posts.
In 2018, Scott M. Graffius first published data on the average half-life of posts based on a large dataset comprised of multiple sources. Algorithms and other factors on platforms change over time. For that reason, Graffius periodically updates his 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' research. His work has captured the attention of, and is used by, a diverse global audience of businesses, professional associations, government agencies, universities, and others.
Errors in Frontiers in Public Health
A paper published in Frontiers in Public Health, titled 'Public perceptions of digital mental health awareness campaign in the Arab Gulf states: a qualitative thematic analysis,' inaccurately portrayed findings from the 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' research. The Frontiers authors wrongly claimed that, "the lifespan of social media posts on most platforms is, at most, 9 days," conflating 'lifespan' with 'half-life.' Their error misrepresented the research’s conclusions. Furthermore, the Frontiers paper mis-referenced Graffius’ work, citing an incorrect title and omitting the DOI, undermining the accuracy of the scholarship.
Limited excerpts from the problematic Frontiers in Public Health paper follow.
Due to its errors, the Frontiers paper misleads readers, posing a risk of misinformation that could negatively impact future research or the improper application of its findings.
Action Taken: Reporting and Following Up on the Errors
Following Graffius' own recommendation on what to do when discovering errors (available at https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/error-reporting.html), he took action. On 18 December 2024, Graffius sent an email to the lead author, Noura Alomair, and included the editorial and publishing team at Frontiers in Public Health. The email delineated the factual error and the citation error, and it provided specific corrections for both. Excerpts from Graffius' email are shown in blue font.
1. Factual error.
The data collection section on page 03 includes this: "The lifespan of social media posts on most platforms is, at most, 9 days (19)."
However, the metric is half-life. I defined it in my research (which you cited): "The lifespan of posts is of interest, and a helpful metric is half-life. It’s the amount of time it takes for a post to receive half of its total engagement (such as likes, shares, and comments)."
Additional information — for background and context only:
Accordingly, I suggest that this:
"The lifespan of social media posts on most platforms is, at most, 9 days (19)."
is corrected to this (or similar):
"Posts on top social media platforms typically receive half of their total engagement (such as likes, shares, and comments) quickly, ranging from seconds to under nine days. After that half-life point, posts start to get buried in the news feed."
2. Citation error.
Except for my work, items in the references section reflect the following template/example: "Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport, Exerc Health. (2019) 11:589– 97. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806". The reference for my work is shown as: "GRAFFIUS SM. Half-life for posts on different social media platforms. (2024)." My last name is in all caps, which is not consistent with other entries. Additionally, the title is wrong, and the DOI (or, alternatively, link) is missing.
I suggest that it is corrected to this:
"Graffius SM. Lifespan (half-life) of social media posts: update for 2024. (2024). doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21043.60965."
Except for an auto-reply from the publisher—which promised communication "within 5 business days"—there was no response to Graffius' report of the errors. As of 20 March 2025 (the date of this article), there have been 92 days of radio silence. That's deeply concerning.
Consistent with the persistence advocated for in Graffius' own error-reporting guide, he sent a follow-up email on 20 March 2025, reiterating the errors and emphasizing the importance of research integrity. He wrote, "I imagine that, like me, you value the integrity of the academic record and would want to correct these errors to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the published work." This case study—inclusive of finding and reporting errors, getting radio silence, and more—underscores challenges of ensuring accountability in publishing.
Conclusion
As demonstrated by their action or inaction, some authors, editors, and publishers appreciate finding out about errors so that they can correct them, while others do not. The error reporting experience with Frontiers in Public Health was frustrating due to inaction from both the lead author and the publishing team. Despite providing detailed evidence and following up after 92 days of silence, Graffius has yet to receive a response. This case underscores the persistence sometimes required to uphold integrity. It also highlights the importance of taking action: while the ideal response to an error report is prompt acknowledgment and correction, the reality can be radio silence—necessitating further effort.
Whether it's enhancing the experience for future readers or upholding the accuracy and integrity of scientific works, vigilance in reporting errors plays a pivotal role.
If there is an update on this case, it will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section which appears at the end of the article.
Read on for:
About Frontiers in Public Health
Frontiers in Public Health is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes research spanning multiple aspects of public health. Launched in 2013 by Frontiers Media, it covers topics such as health policy, epidemiology, environmental health, digital public health, and more. The journal is structured into specialty sections, including Public Mental Health, Health Economics, Aging and Public Health, and more. By fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and focused on disseminating high-quality research, Frontiers in Public Health plays a vital role in shaping public health policies and interventions worldwide.
About Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' Research
Scientists, researchers, journalists, academics, YouTubers, podcasters, SEO experts, analysts, businesses, and others around with world feature and use Scott M. Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' research. The current (2025) edition is available here.
About Scott M. Graffius
Scott M. Graffius sparks breakthroughs in AI, agile, and project management/PMO leadership as a globally recognized practitioner, researcher, thought leader, award-winning author, and international public speaker.
Graffius has generated more than USD $1.9 billion in business value for organizations served, including Fortune 500 companies. Businesses and industries range from technology (including R&D and AI) to entertainment, financial services, and healthcare, government, social media, and more.
Graffius leads the professional services firm Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions, along with its subsidiary Exceptional Agility. These consultancies offer strategic and tactical advisory, training, embedded talent, and consulting services to public, private, and government sectors. They help organizations enhance their capabilities and results in agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and PMO leadership, supporting innovation and driving competitive advantage. The consultancies confidently back services with a Delighted Client Guarantee™. Graffius is a former vice president of project management with a publicly traded provider of diverse consumer products and services over the Internet. Before that, he ran and supervised the delivery of projects and programs in public and private organizations with businesses ranging from e-commerce to advanced technology products and services, retail, manufacturing, entertainment, and more. He has experience with consumer, business, reseller, government, and international markets.
He is the author of two award-winning books.
Prominent businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities have featured Graffius and his work including content from his books, talks, workshops, and more. Select examples include:
Graffius has been actively involved with the Project Management Institute (PMI) in the development of professional standards. He was a member of the team which produced the Practice Standard for Work Breakdown Structures—Second Edition. Graffius was a contributor and reviewer of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge—Sixth Edition, The Standard for Program Management—Fourth Edition, and The Practice Standard for Project Estimating—Second Edition. He was also a subject matter expert reviewer of content for the PMI’s Congress. Beyond the PMI, Graffius also served as a member of the review team for two of the Scrum Alliance’s Global Scrum Gatherings.
Graffius has a bachelor’s degree in psychology with a focus in Human Factors. He holds eight professional certifications:
He is an active member of the Scrum Alliance, the Project Management Institute (PMI), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
He divides his time between Los Angeles and Paris, France.
Thought Leader | Public Speaker | Agile Scrum Book | Agile Transformation Book | Blog | Photo | X | LinkedIn | Email
How to Cite This Article
Graffius, Scott M. (2025, March 20). Reporting Errors in 'Frontiers in Public Health': A Case Study. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/reporting-errors-in-frontiers-of-public-health-publication.html.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
DOI: (coming soon)
Content Acknowledgements
This article includes brief excerpts from Frontiers in Public Health ('Public perceptions of digital mental health awareness campaign in the Arab Gulf states: a qualitative thematic analysis' by Noura Alomair, Ghadah Alkhaldi, Norah M. Alsadhan, Rawan Alkasabi, and Samah Alageel), attributed and used under fair use for news reporting and analysis.
Frontiers in Public Health is the property of Frontiers Media S.A.
Graffius’ Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' is copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Post-Publication Notes
If there's an update after this article is published, the information will appear here.
Update on 24 March 2025
On 24 March 2025, Frontiers (the publisher) sent an email to Graffius. Here’s an excerpt:
"This is to let you know that the corresponding author has submitted a corrigendum for the article based on your comments. Our editorial team will review the corrigendum."
Update on 24 March 2025
On 24 March 2025, Graffius replied to Frontiers’ email. Here’s an excerpt:
"Please:
1. Inform me know when you’re scheduled to implement the corrections (or an estimated date), and
2. Update me after you’ve implemented the corrections."
Update on 25 March 2025
On 25 March 2025, Frontiers (the publisher) sent an email to Graffius. Here’s an excerpt from it:
"If the corrigendum is accepted, I will send you the link to the online page. There will also be a visible link to the Corrigendum on the original article, as soon as the article is accepted. Once an article is accepted, they are published within 3 weeks on average. Please note that once an article is updated, it can take longer for the update to be reflected in certain repositories, depending on the repository."
Update on 28 March 2025
The most recent update from the publisher was on 25 March 2025. It's noted above.
For context, Graffius reported the errors on 18 December 2024. As of today, that was 100 days ago, and the errors have not yet been resolved.
Copyright
Copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Content on this site—including text, images, videos, and data—may not be used for training or input into any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automatized learning systems, or published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.
Any updates after this article is published will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section at the end of the article.
Introduction
Errors in published works can unleash a cascade of profound effects: they corrupt the well of knowledge, deceive those seeking truth, and shatter the foundation of credibility. As explored in the widely read article on reporting errors, taking action to address such issues plays a pivotal role in ensuring the accuracy and integrity of knowledge.
But what happens when errors go unaddressed, even after being reported with detailed evidence? This article presents a case study from Graffius’ own experience, where a publication in Frontiers in Public Health mischaracterized his research on the lifespan (half-life) of social media posts (2024 edition) and incorrectly cited his work. Despite reporting these issues to the lead author and publisher, the response—or lack thereof in this case—reveals the challenges and persistence required to uphold research integrity. Through this case study, this article illustrates the error reporting process, the importance of follow-through, and the lessons learned.
Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' Research
When content is published on social media platforms, relevance and engagement have a limited lifespan. Most posts receive half of their total engagement (such as likes, shares, and comments) relatively soon, with the remainder spread out over a comparatively longer period. Said differently, plotting engagement against time typically reveals a distribution where the peak engagement occurs early, with a long tail of diminishing interaction, resembling a positively skewed unimodal distribution.
Given the above, an advantageous, objective metric for social media posts is half-life. It’s the time it takes for a post to receive half of its total engagement. Data can help inform strategic and tactical decisions, such as the frequency and scheduling of posts.
In 2018, Scott M. Graffius first published data on the average half-life of posts based on a large dataset comprised of multiple sources. Algorithms and other factors on platforms change over time. For that reason, Graffius periodically updates his 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' research. His work has captured the attention of, and is used by, a diverse global audience of businesses, professional associations, government agencies, universities, and others.
Errors in Frontiers in Public Health
A paper published in Frontiers in Public Health, titled 'Public perceptions of digital mental health awareness campaign in the Arab Gulf states: a qualitative thematic analysis,' inaccurately portrayed findings from the 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' research. The Frontiers authors wrongly claimed that, "the lifespan of social media posts on most platforms is, at most, 9 days," conflating 'lifespan' with 'half-life.' Their error misrepresented the research’s conclusions. Furthermore, the Frontiers paper mis-referenced Graffius’ work, citing an incorrect title and omitting the DOI, undermining the accuracy of the scholarship.
Limited excerpts from the problematic Frontiers in Public Health paper follow.
Due to its errors, the Frontiers paper misleads readers, posing a risk of misinformation that could negatively impact future research or the improper application of its findings.
Action Taken: Reporting and Following Up on the Errors
Following Graffius' own recommendation on what to do when discovering errors (available at https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/error-reporting.html), he took action. On 18 December 2024, Graffius sent an email to the lead author, Noura Alomair, and included the editorial and publishing team at Frontiers in Public Health. The email delineated the factual error and the citation error, and it provided specific corrections for both. Excerpts from Graffius' email are shown in blue font.
1. Factual error.
The data collection section on page 03 includes this: "The lifespan of social media posts on most platforms is, at most, 9 days (19)."
However, the metric is half-life. I defined it in my research (which you cited): "The lifespan of posts is of interest, and a helpful metric is half-life. It’s the amount of time it takes for a post to receive half of its total engagement (such as likes, shares, and comments)."
Additional information — for background and context only:
- When content is published online, relevance and engagement have a limited lifespan. Engagement is typically not distributed as a normal bell curve. Rather, it’s generally a unimodal distribution-based, positively skewed curve.
- Here’s a description of the prototypical distribution of data (engagement): On average, most posts receive half of their total engagement relatively soon, with the remainder spread out over a comparatively long(er) period.
- For those reasons, an advantageous respective objective metric for posts on social media platforms is half-life. It’s the time it takes for a post to receive half of its total engagement (such as likes, shares, and comments).
- Built on a large dataset from multiple sources, Graffius’ research reveals the average lifespan (half-life) for posts on different social media platforms.
- Note: Findings from others — including anecdotal experience from select posts or otherwise the experience of one person, one organization, or a limited dataset — may vary from the average half-life data in Graffius’ research.
Accordingly, I suggest that this:
"The lifespan of social media posts on most platforms is, at most, 9 days (19)."
is corrected to this (or similar):
"Posts on top social media platforms typically receive half of their total engagement (such as likes, shares, and comments) quickly, ranging from seconds to under nine days. After that half-life point, posts start to get buried in the news feed."
2. Citation error.
Except for my work, items in the references section reflect the following template/example: "Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport, Exerc Health. (2019) 11:589– 97. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806". The reference for my work is shown as: "GRAFFIUS SM. Half-life for posts on different social media platforms. (2024)." My last name is in all caps, which is not consistent with other entries. Additionally, the title is wrong, and the DOI (or, alternatively, link) is missing.
I suggest that it is corrected to this:
"Graffius SM. Lifespan (half-life) of social media posts: update for 2024. (2024). doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21043.60965."
Except for an auto-reply from the publisher—which promised communication "within 5 business days"—there was no response to Graffius' report of the errors. As of 20 March 2025 (the date of this article), there have been 92 days of radio silence. That's deeply concerning.
Consistent with the persistence advocated for in Graffius' own error-reporting guide, he sent a follow-up email on 20 March 2025, reiterating the errors and emphasizing the importance of research integrity. He wrote, "I imagine that, like me, you value the integrity of the academic record and would want to correct these errors to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the published work." This case study—inclusive of finding and reporting errors, getting radio silence, and more—underscores challenges of ensuring accountability in publishing.
Conclusion
As demonstrated by their action or inaction, some authors, editors, and publishers appreciate finding out about errors so that they can correct them, while others do not. The error reporting experience with Frontiers in Public Health was frustrating due to inaction from both the lead author and the publishing team. Despite providing detailed evidence and following up after 92 days of silence, Graffius has yet to receive a response. This case underscores the persistence sometimes required to uphold integrity. It also highlights the importance of taking action: while the ideal response to an error report is prompt acknowledgment and correction, the reality can be radio silence—necessitating further effort.
Whether it's enhancing the experience for future readers or upholding the accuracy and integrity of scientific works, vigilance in reporting errors plays a pivotal role.
If there is an update on this case, it will appear in the Post-Publication Notes section which appears at the end of the article.
Read on for:
- About Frontiers in Public Health,
- About Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' Research,
- About Scott M. Graffius,
- How to Cite This Article,
- Post-Publication Notes,
- and more.
About Frontiers in Public Health
Frontiers in Public Health is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes research spanning multiple aspects of public health. Launched in 2013 by Frontiers Media, it covers topics such as health policy, epidemiology, environmental health, digital public health, and more. The journal is structured into specialty sections, including Public Mental Health, Health Economics, Aging and Public Health, and more. By fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and focused on disseminating high-quality research, Frontiers in Public Health plays a vital role in shaping public health policies and interventions worldwide.
About Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' Research
Scientists, researchers, journalists, academics, YouTubers, podcasters, SEO experts, analysts, businesses, and others around with world feature and use Scott M. Graffius' 'Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' research. The current (2025) edition is available here.
About Scott M. Graffius
Scott M. Graffius sparks breakthroughs in AI, agile, and project management/PMO leadership as a globally recognized practitioner, researcher, thought leader, award-winning author, and international public speaker.
Graffius has generated more than USD $1.9 billion in business value for organizations served, including Fortune 500 companies. Businesses and industries range from technology (including R&D and AI) to entertainment, financial services, and healthcare, government, social media, and more.
Graffius leads the professional services firm Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions, along with its subsidiary Exceptional Agility. These consultancies offer strategic and tactical advisory, training, embedded talent, and consulting services to public, private, and government sectors. They help organizations enhance their capabilities and results in agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and PMO leadership, supporting innovation and driving competitive advantage. The consultancies confidently back services with a Delighted Client Guarantee™. Graffius is a former vice president of project management with a publicly traded provider of diverse consumer products and services over the Internet. Before that, he ran and supervised the delivery of projects and programs in public and private organizations with businesses ranging from e-commerce to advanced technology products and services, retail, manufacturing, entertainment, and more. He has experience with consumer, business, reseller, government, and international markets.
He is the author of two award-winning books.
- His first book, Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions (ISBN-13: 9781533370242), received 17 awards.
- His second book is Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change (ISBN-13: 9781072447962). BookAuthority named it one of the best Scrum books of all time.
Prominent businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities have featured Graffius and his work including content from his books, talks, workshops, and more. Select examples include:
- Adobe,
- American Management Association,
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute,
- Bayer,
- BMC Software,
- Boston University,
- Broadcom,
- Cisco,
- Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts Germany,
- Computer Weekly,
- Constructor University Germany,
- Data Governance Success,
- Deimos Aerospace,
- DevOps Institute,
- EU's European Commission,
- Ford Motor Company,
- GoDaddy,
- Harvard Medical School,
- Hasso Plattner Institute Germany,
- IEEE,
- Innovation Project Management,
- Johns Hopkins University,
- Journal of Neurosurgery,
- Lam Research (Semiconductors),
- Leadership Worthy,
- Life Sciences Trainers and Educators Network,
- London South Bank University,
- Microsoft,
- NASSCOM,
- National Academy of Sciences,
- New Zealand Government,
- Oracle,
- Pinterest Inc.,
- Project Management Institute,
- SANS Institute,
- SBG Neumark Germany,
- Singapore Institute of Technology,
- Torrens University Australia,
- TBS Switzerland,
- Tufts University,
- UC San Diego,
- UK Sports Institute,
- University of Galway Ireland,
- US Department of Energy,
- US National Park Service,
- US Tennis Association,
- Veleučilište u Rijeci Croatia,
- Verizon,
- Virginia Tech,
- Warsaw University of Technology,
- Wrike,
- Yale University,
- and many others.
Graffius has been actively involved with the Project Management Institute (PMI) in the development of professional standards. He was a member of the team which produced the Practice Standard for Work Breakdown Structures—Second Edition. Graffius was a contributor and reviewer of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge—Sixth Edition, The Standard for Program Management—Fourth Edition, and The Practice Standard for Project Estimating—Second Edition. He was also a subject matter expert reviewer of content for the PMI’s Congress. Beyond the PMI, Graffius also served as a member of the review team for two of the Scrum Alliance’s Global Scrum Gatherings.
Graffius has a bachelor’s degree in psychology with a focus in Human Factors. He holds eight professional certifications:
- Certified SAFe 6 Agilist (SA),
- Certified Scrum Professional - ScrumMaster (CSP-SM),
- Certified Scrum Professional - Product Owner (CSP-PO),
- Certified ScrumMaster (CSM),
- Certified Scrum Product Owner (CSPO),
- Project Management Professional (PMP),
- Lean Six Sigma Green Belt (LSSGB), and
- IT Service Management Foundation (ITIL).
He is an active member of the Scrum Alliance, the Project Management Institute (PMI), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
He divides his time between Los Angeles and Paris, France.
Thought Leader | Public Speaker | Agile Scrum Book | Agile Transformation Book | Blog | Photo | X | LinkedIn | Email
How to Cite This Article
Graffius, Scott M. (2025, March 20). Reporting Errors in 'Frontiers in Public Health': A Case Study. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/reporting-errors-in-frontiers-of-public-health-publication.html.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
DOI: (coming soon)
Content Acknowledgements
This article includes brief excerpts from Frontiers in Public Health ('Public perceptions of digital mental health awareness campaign in the Arab Gulf states: a qualitative thematic analysis' by Noura Alomair, Ghadah Alkhaldi, Norah M. Alsadhan, Rawan Alkasabi, and Samah Alageel), attributed and used under fair use for news reporting and analysis.
Frontiers in Public Health is the property of Frontiers Media S.A.
Graffius’ Lifespan (Half-Life) of Social Media Posts' is copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Post-Publication Notes
If there's an update after this article is published, the information will appear here.
Update on 24 March 2025
On 24 March 2025, Frontiers (the publisher) sent an email to Graffius. Here’s an excerpt:
"This is to let you know that the corresponding author has submitted a corrigendum for the article based on your comments. Our editorial team will review the corrigendum."
Update on 24 March 2025
On 24 March 2025, Graffius replied to Frontiers’ email. Here’s an excerpt:
"Please:
1. Inform me know when you’re scheduled to implement the corrections (or an estimated date), and
2. Update me after you’ve implemented the corrections."
Update on 25 March 2025
On 25 March 2025, Frontiers (the publisher) sent an email to Graffius. Here’s an excerpt from it:
"If the corrigendum is accepted, I will send you the link to the online page. There will also be a visible link to the Corrigendum on the original article, as soon as the article is accepted. Once an article is accepted, they are published within 3 weeks on average. Please note that once an article is updated, it can take longer for the update to be reflected in certain repositories, depending on the repository."
Update on 28 March 2025
The most recent update from the publisher was on 25 March 2025. It's noted above.
For context, Graffius reported the errors on 18 December 2024. As of today, that was 100 days ago, and the errors have not yet been resolved.
Copyright
Copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Content on this site—including text, images, videos, and data—may not be used for training or input into any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automatized learning systems, or published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.
The 3 Vital Rules of Science: What They Are and Why They Matter
06 May 2025
BY SCOTT M. GRAFFIUS | ScottGraffius.com
Introduction
Ever wonder why some "scientific" claims sound convincing but fall apart under scrutiny? Science isn’t just a collection of facts—it’s a disciplined process for understanding the world. In today’s flood of information and competing claims, being fluent in the logic and rigor of science is more valuable than ever.
Scott M. Graffius shared a visual—similar to the one that heads-up this article—via social media. It garnered attention from professionals across disciplines. Prompted by the interest it generated, Graffius developed this article to provide deeper insight into the concepts behind the visual: falsifiability, replicability, and the critical distinction that correlation is not causation.
These principles are foundational to the scientific method and are frequently misunderstood. Together, they offer a powerful lens for evaluating claims, research rigor, and the validity of conclusions.
Falsifiability
Falsifiability means a scientific claim or hypothesis must be testable—and potentially provable wrong. Championed by philosopher Karl Popper, this idea is essential to science’s integrity. For example, “All swans are white” is falsifiable: a single black swan disproves it. In contrast, vague claims like “This crystal boosts your energy in ways science can’t measure” aren’t science. Falsifiability ensures ideas are grounded in evidence, not just belief or anecdote.
A real-world example is Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Einstein predicted that massive objects like the sun could bend light—a bold, falsifiable claim. In 1919, during a solar eclipse, astronomers led by Arthur Eddington tested this by observing starlight bending around the sun, exactly as Einstein predicted. If the light hadn’t bent, the theory could have been disproven—a hallmark of true science. This ability to be tested and potentially refuted sets scientific claims apart from pseudoscience or speculation.
Replicability
Replicability means an experiment or study should yield the same results when repeated under identical conditions. It’s how science builds trust and advances. If a finding can’t be replicated, its reliability is questionable. The “replication crisis” in fields like psychology and medicine has highlighted this principle, as many high-profile studies failed to hold up when retested.
A notable case is a 2011 study on “ego depletion,” which suggested that self-control draws from a limited pool of mental energy, reducing the ability to exert it elsewhere. The idea gained traction, influencing workplace productivity strategies and personal development advice. For example, people were advised to tackle tough tasks early to “save” mental energy. Yet, a 2016 large-scale replication effort with over 2,000 participants across multiple labs failed to reproduce the effect. This raised doubts about the validity of ego depletion and underscored the need for replication to distinguish genuine insights from flawed findings.
Replicability isn’t about perfection—it’s about transparency, rigor, and enabling the scientific community to verify and build on discoveries.
Correlation is Not Causation
One of the most misunderstood principles in science and statistics is the difference between correlation and causation. Just because two things occur together doesn’t mean one causes the other.
In the business world, a notable example involves the assumption that implementing employee wellness programs directly leads to improved company performance. Early studies observed that companies with such programs often reported better financial outcomes, leading to the belief that the wellness initiatives were the cause of this success. However, subsequent research, including a comprehensive randomized controlled trial conducted by the University of Chicago and Harvard University, found that while wellness programs might encourage some healthy behaviors, they did not significantly impact clinical health measures, healthcare spending, or job performance. This suggests that the initial correlation was likely influenced by other factors, such as the possibility that more successful companies have more resources to invest in wellness programs, rather than the programs themselves driving financial success. This example underscores the importance of not conflating correlation with causation.
By contrast, science can confirm causation. Take regular exercise: decades of research, from randomized trials to longitudinal studies, show it directly boosts cardiovascular health. Aerobic activity strengthens the heart, lowers blood pressure, and cuts heart disease risk—effects backed by clear biological evidence. Distinguishing correlation from causation is critical, as mistaking one for the other can lead to flawed conclusions, poor policies, and misleading headlines. Sound science digs deeper, using experiments and analysis to uncover cause-and-effect relationships.
Conclusion
The scientific method thrives on curiosity but demands discipline. Falsifiability, replicability, and the distinction between correlation and causation aren’t just academic concepts—they’re practical tools for critical thinking. Whether evaluating research, assessing a health claim, or analyzing business data, these rules help separate the meaningful from the merely suggestive. Embrace these principles, and you’ll not only navigate today’s flood of information with confidence but also inspire others to think critically in a world that needs it more than ever.
More
Read on for…
Bibliography
About Scott M. Graffius
Scott M. Graffius sparks breakthroughs in AI, agile, and project management/PMO leadership as a globally recognized practitioner, researcher, thought leader, award-winning author, and international public speaker.
Graffius has generated more than USD $2.3 billion in business value for organizations served, including Fortune 500 companies. Businesses and industries range from technology (including R&D and AI) to entertainment, financial services, and healthcare, government, social media, and more.
Graffius leads the professional services firm Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions, along with its subsidiary Exceptional Agility. These consultancies offer strategic and tactical advisory, training, embedded talent, and consulting services to public, private, and government sectors. They help organizations enhance their capabilities and results in agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and PMO leadership, supporting innovation and driving competitive advantage. The consultancies confidently back services with a Delighted Client Guarantee™. Graffius is a former vice president of project management with a publicly traded provider of diverse consumer products and services over the Internet. Before that, he ran and supervised the delivery of projects and programs in public and private organizations with businesses ranging from e-commerce to advanced technology products and services, retail, manufacturing, entertainment, and more. He has experience with consumer, business, reseller, government, and international markets.
He is the author of three books.
Prominent businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities have featured Graffius and his work including content from his books, talks, workshops, and more. Select examples include:
Graffius has been actively involved with the Project Management Institute (PMI) in the development of professional standards. He was a member of the team which produced the Practice Standard for Work Breakdown Structures—Second Edition. Graffius was a contributor and reviewer of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge—Sixth Edition, The Standard for Program Management—Fourth Edition, and The Practice Standard for Project Estimating—Second Edition. He was also a subject matter expert reviewer of content for the PMI’s Congress. Beyond the PMI, Graffius also served as a member of the review team for two of the Scrum Alliance’s Global Scrum Gatherings.
Graffius has a bachelor’s degree in psychology with a focus in Human Factors. He holds eight professional certifications:
He is an active member of the Scrum Alliance, the Project Management Institute (PMI), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
He divides his time between Los Angeles and Paris, France.
Thought Leader | Public Speaker | Agile Protocol Book | Agile Scrum Book | Agile Transformation Book | Blog | Photo | X | LinkedIn | Email
How to Cite This Article
Graffius, Scott M. (2025, May 6). The 3 Vital Rules of Science: What They Are and Why They Matter. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/3-vital-rules-of-science-what-they-are-and-why-they-matter.html.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
DOI: (coming soon)
Content Acknowledgements
Names and marks are the property of their respective owners.
Copyright
Copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Content on this site—including text, images, videos, and data—may not be used for training or input into any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automatized learning systems, or published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.
Introduction
Ever wonder why some "scientific" claims sound convincing but fall apart under scrutiny? Science isn’t just a collection of facts—it’s a disciplined process for understanding the world. In today’s flood of information and competing claims, being fluent in the logic and rigor of science is more valuable than ever.
Scott M. Graffius shared a visual—similar to the one that heads-up this article—via social media. It garnered attention from professionals across disciplines. Prompted by the interest it generated, Graffius developed this article to provide deeper insight into the concepts behind the visual: falsifiability, replicability, and the critical distinction that correlation is not causation.
These principles are foundational to the scientific method and are frequently misunderstood. Together, they offer a powerful lens for evaluating claims, research rigor, and the validity of conclusions.
Falsifiability
Falsifiability means a scientific claim or hypothesis must be testable—and potentially provable wrong. Championed by philosopher Karl Popper, this idea is essential to science’s integrity. For example, “All swans are white” is falsifiable: a single black swan disproves it. In contrast, vague claims like “This crystal boosts your energy in ways science can’t measure” aren’t science. Falsifiability ensures ideas are grounded in evidence, not just belief or anecdote.
A real-world example is Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Einstein predicted that massive objects like the sun could bend light—a bold, falsifiable claim. In 1919, during a solar eclipse, astronomers led by Arthur Eddington tested this by observing starlight bending around the sun, exactly as Einstein predicted. If the light hadn’t bent, the theory could have been disproven—a hallmark of true science. This ability to be tested and potentially refuted sets scientific claims apart from pseudoscience or speculation.
Replicability
Replicability means an experiment or study should yield the same results when repeated under identical conditions. It’s how science builds trust and advances. If a finding can’t be replicated, its reliability is questionable. The “replication crisis” in fields like psychology and medicine has highlighted this principle, as many high-profile studies failed to hold up when retested.
A notable case is a 2011 study on “ego depletion,” which suggested that self-control draws from a limited pool of mental energy, reducing the ability to exert it elsewhere. The idea gained traction, influencing workplace productivity strategies and personal development advice. For example, people were advised to tackle tough tasks early to “save” mental energy. Yet, a 2016 large-scale replication effort with over 2,000 participants across multiple labs failed to reproduce the effect. This raised doubts about the validity of ego depletion and underscored the need for replication to distinguish genuine insights from flawed findings.
Replicability isn’t about perfection—it’s about transparency, rigor, and enabling the scientific community to verify and build on discoveries.
Correlation is Not Causation
One of the most misunderstood principles in science and statistics is the difference between correlation and causation. Just because two things occur together doesn’t mean one causes the other.
In the business world, a notable example involves the assumption that implementing employee wellness programs directly leads to improved company performance. Early studies observed that companies with such programs often reported better financial outcomes, leading to the belief that the wellness initiatives were the cause of this success. However, subsequent research, including a comprehensive randomized controlled trial conducted by the University of Chicago and Harvard University, found that while wellness programs might encourage some healthy behaviors, they did not significantly impact clinical health measures, healthcare spending, or job performance. This suggests that the initial correlation was likely influenced by other factors, such as the possibility that more successful companies have more resources to invest in wellness programs, rather than the programs themselves driving financial success. This example underscores the importance of not conflating correlation with causation.
By contrast, science can confirm causation. Take regular exercise: decades of research, from randomized trials to longitudinal studies, show it directly boosts cardiovascular health. Aerobic activity strengthens the heart, lowers blood pressure, and cuts heart disease risk—effects backed by clear biological evidence. Distinguishing correlation from causation is critical, as mistaking one for the other can lead to flawed conclusions, poor policies, and misleading headlines. Sound science digs deeper, using experiments and analysis to uncover cause-and-effect relationships.
Conclusion
The scientific method thrives on curiosity but demands discipline. Falsifiability, replicability, and the distinction between correlation and causation aren’t just academic concepts—they’re practical tools for critical thinking. Whether evaluating research, assessing a health claim, or analyzing business data, these rules help separate the meaningful from the merely suggestive. Embrace these principles, and you’ll not only navigate today’s flood of information with confidence but also inspire others to think critically in a world that needs it more than ever.
More
Read on for…
- Bibliography
- About Scott M. Graffius
- How to Cite This Article
- And more
Bibliography
- Baicker, K., Song, Z., & Cutler, D. M. (2019, April 16). Workplace Wellness Programs Fail to Improve Health, Study Finds. University of Chicago News. Available at: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/workplace-wellness-programs-fail-improve-health-study-finds.
- Croft, J., Parks, A., & Whillans, A. (2024, October 18). Why Workplace Well-Being Programs Don’t Achieve Better Outcomes. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2024/10/why-workplace-well-being-programs-dont-achieve-better-outcomes.
- Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (2nd edition). University of Chicago Press.
- Graffius, Scott M. (2023, June). What Successful AI Teams Have in Common. ResearchGate. Available at: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29382.45120.
- Greenland, S., Pearl, J., & Robins, J. M. (1999). Causal Diagrams for Epidemiologic Research. Epidemiology, 10 (1): 37–48.
- Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge University Press.
- Haack, S. (2003). Defending Science—Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism. Prometheus Books.
- Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Prentice-Hall.
- Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge University Press.
- Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the Slow Progress of Soft Psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46 (4): 806–834.
- Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why Summaries of Research on Psychological Theories Are Often Uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66 (1): 195–244.
- Miller, J. (2019, April 16). Do wellness programs work? Harvard Medical School. Available at: https://hms.harvard.edu/news/do-wellness-programs-work.
- Morris, A. (2018, February 18). 3 Vital Rules of Science, in Plain English. Forbes.
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, et al. (2019, May 7). Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. National Academies Press (US). Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547546/.
- Nosek, B. A., et al. (2015). Promoting an Open Research Culture. Science, 348 (6242): 1422–1425.
- Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (2nd edition). Cambridge University Press.
- Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge.
- Schickore, J. (2014). The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation. Cambridge University Press.
- Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin.
- Taleb, N. N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House.
- Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA’s Statement on P-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. The American Statistician, 70 (2): 129–133.
About Scott M. Graffius
Scott M. Graffius sparks breakthroughs in AI, agile, and project management/PMO leadership as a globally recognized practitioner, researcher, thought leader, award-winning author, and international public speaker.
Graffius has generated more than USD $2.3 billion in business value for organizations served, including Fortune 500 companies. Businesses and industries range from technology (including R&D and AI) to entertainment, financial services, and healthcare, government, social media, and more.
Graffius leads the professional services firm Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions, along with its subsidiary Exceptional Agility. These consultancies offer strategic and tactical advisory, training, embedded talent, and consulting services to public, private, and government sectors. They help organizations enhance their capabilities and results in agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and PMO leadership, supporting innovation and driving competitive advantage. The consultancies confidently back services with a Delighted Client Guarantee™. Graffius is a former vice president of project management with a publicly traded provider of diverse consumer products and services over the Internet. Before that, he ran and supervised the delivery of projects and programs in public and private organizations with businesses ranging from e-commerce to advanced technology products and services, retail, manufacturing, entertainment, and more. He has experience with consumer, business, reseller, government, and international markets.
He is the author of three books.
- Graffius' first book, Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions (paperback ISBN-13: 9781533370242) (Kindle ebook ASIN: B01FZ0JIIY), received 17 awards.
- His second book is Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change (paperback ISBN-13: 9781072447962) (Kindle ebook ASIN: B07R9LJLPJ). BookAuthority named it one of the best Scrum books of all time.
- His third book—his first work of fiction—is Agile Protocol: The Transformation Ultimatum (Kindle ebook ASIN: B0F2SJ83WT) (Audible audiobook ASIN: B0DJG163R5).
Prominent businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities have featured Graffius and his work including content from his books, talks, workshops, and more. Select examples include:
- Adobe,
- American Management Association,
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute,
- Bayer,
- BMC Software,
- Boston University,
- Broadcom,
- Cisco,
- Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts Germany,
- Computer Weekly,
- Constructor University Germany,
- Data Governance Success,
- Deimos Aerospace,
- DevOps Institute,
- EU's European Commission,
- Ford Motor Company,
- GoDaddy,
- Harvard Medical School,
- Hasso Plattner Institute Germany,
- IEEE,
- Innovation Project Management,
- Johns Hopkins University,
- Journal of Neurosurgery,
- Lam Research (Semiconductors),
- Leadership Worthy,
- Life Sciences Trainers and Educators Network,
- London South Bank University,
- Microsoft,
- NASSCOM,
- National Academy of Sciences,
- New Zealand Government,
- Oracle,
- Pinterest Inc.,
- Project Management Institute,
- SANS Institute,
- SBG Neumark Germany,
- Singapore Institute of Technology,
- Torrens University Australia,
- TBS Switzerland,
- Tufts University,
- UC San Diego,
- UK Sports Institute,
- University of Galway Ireland,
- US Department of Energy,
- US National Park Service,
- US Tennis Association,
- Veleučilište u Rijeci Croatia,
- Verizon,
- Virginia Tech,
- Warsaw University of Technology,
- Wrike,
- Yale University,
- and many others.
Graffius has been actively involved with the Project Management Institute (PMI) in the development of professional standards. He was a member of the team which produced the Practice Standard for Work Breakdown Structures—Second Edition. Graffius was a contributor and reviewer of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge—Sixth Edition, The Standard for Program Management—Fourth Edition, and The Practice Standard for Project Estimating—Second Edition. He was also a subject matter expert reviewer of content for the PMI’s Congress. Beyond the PMI, Graffius also served as a member of the review team for two of the Scrum Alliance’s Global Scrum Gatherings.
Graffius has a bachelor’s degree in psychology with a focus in Human Factors. He holds eight professional certifications:
- Certified SAFe 6 Agilist (SA),
- Certified Scrum Professional - ScrumMaster (CSP-SM),
- Certified Scrum Professional - Product Owner (CSP-PO),
- Certified ScrumMaster (CSM),
- Certified Scrum Product Owner (CSPO),
- Project Management Professional (PMP),
- Lean Six Sigma Green Belt (LSSGB), and
- IT Service Management Foundation (ITIL).
He is an active member of the Scrum Alliance, the Project Management Institute (PMI), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
He divides his time between Los Angeles and Paris, France.
Thought Leader | Public Speaker | Agile Protocol Book | Agile Scrum Book | Agile Transformation Book | Blog | Photo | X | LinkedIn | Email
How to Cite This Article
Graffius, Scott M. (2025, May 6). The 3 Vital Rules of Science: What They Are and Why They Matter. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/3-vital-rules-of-science-what-they-are-and-why-they-matter.html.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
DOI: (coming soon)
Content Acknowledgements
Names and marks are the property of their respective owners.
Copyright
Copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Content on this site—including text, images, videos, and data—may not be used for training or input into any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automatized learning systems, or published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.
The 3 Vital Rules of Science: What They Are and Why They Matter
06 May 2025
BY SCOTT M. GRAFFIUS | ScottGraffius.com
Introduction
Ever wonder why some "scientific" claims sound convincing but fall apart under scrutiny? Science isn’t just a collection of facts—it’s a disciplined process for understanding the world. In today’s flood of information and competing claims, being fluent in the logic and rigor of science is more valuable than ever.
Scott M. Graffius shared a visual—similar to the one that heads-up this article—via social media. It garnered attention from professionals across disciplines. Prompted by the interest it generated, Graffius developed this article to provide deeper insight into the concepts behind the visual: falsifiability, replicability, and the critical distinction that correlation is not causation.
These principles are foundational to the scientific method and are frequently misunderstood. Together, they offer a powerful lens for evaluating claims, research rigor, and the validity of conclusions.
Falsifiability
Falsifiability means a scientific claim or hypothesis must be testable—and potentially provable wrong. Championed by philosopher Karl Popper, this idea is essential to science’s integrity. For example, “All swans are white” is falsifiable: a single black swan disproves it. In contrast, vague claims like “This crystal boosts your energy in ways science can’t measure” aren’t science. Falsifiability ensures ideas are grounded in evidence, not just belief or anecdote.
A real-world example is Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Einstein predicted that massive objects like the sun could bend light—a bold, falsifiable claim. In 1919, during a solar eclipse, astronomers led by Arthur Eddington tested this by observing starlight bending around the sun, exactly as Einstein predicted. If the light hadn’t bent, the theory could have been disproven—a hallmark of true science. This ability to be tested and potentially refuted sets scientific claims apart from pseudoscience or speculation.
Replicability
Replicability means an experiment or study should yield the same results when repeated under identical conditions. It’s how science builds trust and advances. If a finding can’t be replicated, its reliability is questionable. The “replication crisis” in fields like psychology and medicine has highlighted this principle, as many high-profile studies failed to hold up when retested.
A notable case is a 2011 study on “ego depletion,” which suggested that self-control draws from a limited pool of mental energy, reducing the ability to exert it elsewhere. The idea gained traction, influencing workplace productivity strategies and personal development advice. For example, people were advised to tackle tough tasks early to “save” mental energy. Yet, a 2016 large-scale replication effort with over 2,000 participants across multiple labs failed to reproduce the effect. This raised doubts about the validity of ego depletion and underscored the need for replication to distinguish genuine insights from flawed findings.
Replicability isn’t about perfection—it’s about transparency, rigor, and enabling the scientific community to verify and build on discoveries.
Correlation is Not Causation
One of the most misunderstood principles in science and statistics is the difference between correlation and causation. Just because two things occur together doesn’t mean one causes the other.
In the business world, a notable example involves the assumption that implementing employee wellness programs directly leads to improved company performance. Early studies observed that companies with such programs often reported better financial outcomes, leading to the belief that the wellness initiatives were the cause of this success. However, subsequent research, including a comprehensive randomized controlled trial conducted by the University of Chicago and Harvard University, found that while wellness programs might encourage some healthy behaviors, they did not significantly impact clinical health measures, healthcare spending, or job performance. This suggests that the initial correlation was likely influenced by other factors, such as the possibility that more successful companies have more resources to invest in wellness programs, rather than the programs themselves driving financial success. This example underscores the importance of not conflating correlation with causation.
By contrast, science can confirm causation. Take regular exercise: decades of research, from randomized trials to longitudinal studies, show it directly boosts cardiovascular health. Aerobic activity strengthens the heart, lowers blood pressure, and cuts heart disease risk—effects backed by clear biological evidence. Distinguishing correlation from causation is critical, as mistaking one for the other can lead to flawed conclusions, poor policies, and misleading headlines. Sound science digs deeper, using experiments and analysis to uncover cause-and-effect relationships.
Conclusion
The scientific method thrives on curiosity but demands discipline. Falsifiability, replicability, and the distinction between correlation and causation aren’t just academic concepts—they’re practical tools for critical thinking. Whether evaluating research, assessing a health claim, or analyzing business data, these rules help separate the meaningful from the merely suggestive. Embrace these principles, and you’ll not only navigate today’s flood of information with confidence but also inspire others to think critically in a world that needs it more than ever.
More
Read on for…
Bibliography
About Scott M. Graffius
Scott M. Graffius sparks breakthroughs in AI, agile, and project management/PMO leadership as a globally recognized practitioner, researcher, thought leader, award-winning author, and international public speaker.
Graffius has generated more than USD $2.3 billion in business value for organizations served, including Fortune 500 companies. Businesses and industries range from technology (including R&D and AI) to entertainment, financial services, and healthcare, government, social media, and more.
Graffius leads the professional services firm Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions, along with its subsidiary Exceptional Agility. These consultancies offer strategic and tactical advisory, training, embedded talent, and consulting services to public, private, and government sectors. They help organizations enhance their capabilities and results in agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and PMO leadership, supporting innovation and driving competitive advantage. The consultancies confidently back services with a Delighted Client Guarantee™. Graffius is a former vice president of project management with a publicly traded provider of diverse consumer products and services over the Internet. Before that, he ran and supervised the delivery of projects and programs in public and private organizations with businesses ranging from e-commerce to advanced technology products and services, retail, manufacturing, entertainment, and more. He has experience with consumer, business, reseller, government, and international markets.
He is the author of three books.
Prominent businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities have featured Graffius and his work including content from his books, talks, workshops, and more. Select examples include:
Graffius has been actively involved with the Project Management Institute (PMI) in the development of professional standards. He was a member of the team which produced the Practice Standard for Work Breakdown Structures—Second Edition. Graffius was a contributor and reviewer of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge—Sixth Edition, The Standard for Program Management—Fourth Edition, and The Practice Standard for Project Estimating—Second Edition. He was also a subject matter expert reviewer of content for the PMI’s Congress. Beyond the PMI, Graffius also served as a member of the review team for two of the Scrum Alliance’s Global Scrum Gatherings.
Graffius has a bachelor’s degree in psychology with a focus in Human Factors. He holds eight professional certifications:
He is an active member of the Scrum Alliance, the Project Management Institute (PMI), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
He divides his time between Los Angeles and Paris, France.
Thought Leader | Public Speaker | Agile Protocol Book | Agile Scrum Book | Agile Transformation Book | Blog | Photo | X | LinkedIn | Email
How to Cite This Article
Graffius, Scott M. (2025, May 6). The 3 Vital Rules of Science: What They Are and Why They Matter. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/3-vital-rules-of-science-what-they-are-and-why-they-matter.html.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
DOI: (coming soon)
Content Acknowledgements
Names and marks are the property of their respective owners.
Copyright
Copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Content on this site—including text, images, videos, and data—may not be used for training or input into any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automatized learning systems, or published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.
Introduction
Ever wonder why some "scientific" claims sound convincing but fall apart under scrutiny? Science isn’t just a collection of facts—it’s a disciplined process for understanding the world. In today’s flood of information and competing claims, being fluent in the logic and rigor of science is more valuable than ever.
Scott M. Graffius shared a visual—similar to the one that heads-up this article—via social media. It garnered attention from professionals across disciplines. Prompted by the interest it generated, Graffius developed this article to provide deeper insight into the concepts behind the visual: falsifiability, replicability, and the critical distinction that correlation is not causation.
These principles are foundational to the scientific method and are frequently misunderstood. Together, they offer a powerful lens for evaluating claims, research rigor, and the validity of conclusions.
Falsifiability
Falsifiability means a scientific claim or hypothesis must be testable—and potentially provable wrong. Championed by philosopher Karl Popper, this idea is essential to science’s integrity. For example, “All swans are white” is falsifiable: a single black swan disproves it. In contrast, vague claims like “This crystal boosts your energy in ways science can’t measure” aren’t science. Falsifiability ensures ideas are grounded in evidence, not just belief or anecdote.
A real-world example is Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Einstein predicted that massive objects like the sun could bend light—a bold, falsifiable claim. In 1919, during a solar eclipse, astronomers led by Arthur Eddington tested this by observing starlight bending around the sun, exactly as Einstein predicted. If the light hadn’t bent, the theory could have been disproven—a hallmark of true science. This ability to be tested and potentially refuted sets scientific claims apart from pseudoscience or speculation.
Replicability
Replicability means an experiment or study should yield the same results when repeated under identical conditions. It’s how science builds trust and advances. If a finding can’t be replicated, its reliability is questionable. The “replication crisis” in fields like psychology and medicine has highlighted this principle, as many high-profile studies failed to hold up when retested.
A notable case is a 2011 study on “ego depletion,” which suggested that self-control draws from a limited pool of mental energy, reducing the ability to exert it elsewhere. The idea gained traction, influencing workplace productivity strategies and personal development advice. For example, people were advised to tackle tough tasks early to “save” mental energy. Yet, a 2016 large-scale replication effort with over 2,000 participants across multiple labs failed to reproduce the effect. This raised doubts about the validity of ego depletion and underscored the need for replication to distinguish genuine insights from flawed findings.
Replicability isn’t about perfection—it’s about transparency, rigor, and enabling the scientific community to verify and build on discoveries.
Correlation is Not Causation
One of the most misunderstood principles in science and statistics is the difference between correlation and causation. Just because two things occur together doesn’t mean one causes the other.
In the business world, a notable example involves the assumption that implementing employee wellness programs directly leads to improved company performance. Early studies observed that companies with such programs often reported better financial outcomes, leading to the belief that the wellness initiatives were the cause of this success. However, subsequent research, including a comprehensive randomized controlled trial conducted by the University of Chicago and Harvard University, found that while wellness programs might encourage some healthy behaviors, they did not significantly impact clinical health measures, healthcare spending, or job performance. This suggests that the initial correlation was likely influenced by other factors, such as the possibility that more successful companies have more resources to invest in wellness programs, rather than the programs themselves driving financial success. This example underscores the importance of not conflating correlation with causation.
By contrast, science can confirm causation. Take regular exercise: decades of research, from randomized trials to longitudinal studies, show it directly boosts cardiovascular health. Aerobic activity strengthens the heart, lowers blood pressure, and cuts heart disease risk—effects backed by clear biological evidence. Distinguishing correlation from causation is critical, as mistaking one for the other can lead to flawed conclusions, poor policies, and misleading headlines. Sound science digs deeper, using experiments and analysis to uncover cause-and-effect relationships.
Conclusion
The scientific method thrives on curiosity but demands discipline. Falsifiability, replicability, and the distinction between correlation and causation aren’t just academic concepts—they’re practical tools for critical thinking. Whether evaluating research, assessing a health claim, or analyzing business data, these rules help separate the meaningful from the merely suggestive. Embrace these principles, and you’ll not only navigate today’s flood of information with confidence but also inspire others to think critically in a world that needs it more than ever.
More
Read on for…
- Bibliography
- About Scott M. Graffius
- How to Cite This Article
- And more
Bibliography
- Baicker, K., Song, Z., & Cutler, D. M. (2019, April 16). Workplace Wellness Programs Fail to Improve Health, Study Finds. University of Chicago News. Available at: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/workplace-wellness-programs-fail-improve-health-study-finds.
- Croft, J., Parks, A., & Whillans, A. (2024, October 18). Why Workplace Well-Being Programs Don’t Achieve Better Outcomes. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2024/10/why-workplace-well-being-programs-dont-achieve-better-outcomes.
- Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (2nd edition). University of Chicago Press.
- Graffius, Scott M. (2023, June). What Successful AI Teams Have in Common. ResearchGate. Available at: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29382.45120.
- Greenland, S., Pearl, J., & Robins, J. M. (1999). Causal Diagrams for Epidemiologic Research. Epidemiology, 10 (1): 37–48.
- Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge University Press.
- Haack, S. (2003). Defending Science—Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism. Prometheus Books.
- Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Prentice-Hall.
- Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge University Press.
- Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the Slow Progress of Soft Psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46 (4): 806–834.
- Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why Summaries of Research on Psychological Theories Are Often Uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66 (1): 195–244.
- Miller, J. (2019, April 16). Do wellness programs work? Harvard Medical School. Available at: https://hms.harvard.edu/news/do-wellness-programs-work.
- Morris, A. (2018, February 18). 3 Vital Rules of Science, in Plain English. Forbes.
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, et al. (2019, May 7). Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. National Academies Press (US). Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547546/.
- Nosek, B. A., et al. (2015). Promoting an Open Research Culture. Science, 348 (6242): 1422–1425.
- Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (2nd edition). Cambridge University Press.
- Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge.
- Schickore, J. (2014). The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation. Cambridge University Press.
- Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin.
- Taleb, N. N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Random House.
- Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA’s Statement on P-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. The American Statistician, 70 (2): 129–133.
About Scott M. Graffius
Scott M. Graffius sparks breakthroughs in AI, agile, and project management/PMO leadership as a globally recognized practitioner, researcher, thought leader, award-winning author, and international public speaker.
Graffius has generated more than USD $2.3 billion in business value for organizations served, including Fortune 500 companies. Businesses and industries range from technology (including R&D and AI) to entertainment, financial services, and healthcare, government, social media, and more.
Graffius leads the professional services firm Exceptional PPM and PMO Solutions, along with its subsidiary Exceptional Agility. These consultancies offer strategic and tactical advisory, training, embedded talent, and consulting services to public, private, and government sectors. They help organizations enhance their capabilities and results in agile, project management, program management, portfolio management, and PMO leadership, supporting innovation and driving competitive advantage. The consultancies confidently back services with a Delighted Client Guarantee™. Graffius is a former vice president of project management with a publicly traded provider of diverse consumer products and services over the Internet. Before that, he ran and supervised the delivery of projects and programs in public and private organizations with businesses ranging from e-commerce to advanced technology products and services, retail, manufacturing, entertainment, and more. He has experience with consumer, business, reseller, government, and international markets.
He is the author of three books.
- Graffius' first book, Agile Scrum: Your Quick Start Guide with Step-by-Step Instructions (paperback ISBN-13: 9781533370242) (Kindle ebook ASIN: B01FZ0JIIY), received 17 awards.
- His second book is Agile Transformation: A Brief Story of How an Entertainment Company Developed New Capabilities and Unlocked Business Agility to Thrive in an Era of Rapid Change (paperback ISBN-13: 9781072447962) (Kindle ebook ASIN: B07R9LJLPJ). BookAuthority named it one of the best Scrum books of all time.
- His third book—his first work of fiction—is Agile Protocol: The Transformation Ultimatum (Kindle ebook ASIN: B0F2SJ83WT) (Audible audiobook ASIN: B0DJG163R5).
Prominent businesses, professional associations, government agencies, and universities have featured Graffius and his work including content from his books, talks, workshops, and more. Select examples include:
- Adobe,
- American Management Association,
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute,
- Bayer,
- BMC Software,
- Boston University,
- Broadcom,
- Cisco,
- Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts Germany,
- Computer Weekly,
- Constructor University Germany,
- Data Governance Success,
- Deimos Aerospace,
- DevOps Institute,
- EU's European Commission,
- Ford Motor Company,
- GoDaddy,
- Harvard Medical School,
- Hasso Plattner Institute Germany,
- IEEE,
- Innovation Project Management,
- Johns Hopkins University,
- Journal of Neurosurgery,
- Lam Research (Semiconductors),
- Leadership Worthy,
- Life Sciences Trainers and Educators Network,
- London South Bank University,
- Microsoft,
- NASSCOM,
- National Academy of Sciences,
- New Zealand Government,
- Oracle,
- Pinterest Inc.,
- Project Management Institute,
- SANS Institute,
- SBG Neumark Germany,
- Singapore Institute of Technology,
- Torrens University Australia,
- TBS Switzerland,
- Tufts University,
- UC San Diego,
- UK Sports Institute,
- University of Galway Ireland,
- US Department of Energy,
- US National Park Service,
- US Tennis Association,
- Veleučilište u Rijeci Croatia,
- Verizon,
- Virginia Tech,
- Warsaw University of Technology,
- Wrike,
- Yale University,
- and many others.
Graffius has been actively involved with the Project Management Institute (PMI) in the development of professional standards. He was a member of the team which produced the Practice Standard for Work Breakdown Structures—Second Edition. Graffius was a contributor and reviewer of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge—Sixth Edition, The Standard for Program Management—Fourth Edition, and The Practice Standard for Project Estimating—Second Edition. He was also a subject matter expert reviewer of content for the PMI’s Congress. Beyond the PMI, Graffius also served as a member of the review team for two of the Scrum Alliance’s Global Scrum Gatherings.
Graffius has a bachelor’s degree in psychology with a focus in Human Factors. He holds eight professional certifications:
- Certified SAFe 6 Agilist (SA),
- Certified Scrum Professional - ScrumMaster (CSP-SM),
- Certified Scrum Professional - Product Owner (CSP-PO),
- Certified ScrumMaster (CSM),
- Certified Scrum Product Owner (CSPO),
- Project Management Professional (PMP),
- Lean Six Sigma Green Belt (LSSGB), and
- IT Service Management Foundation (ITIL).
He is an active member of the Scrum Alliance, the Project Management Institute (PMI), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
He divides his time between Los Angeles and Paris, France.
Thought Leader | Public Speaker | Agile Protocol Book | Agile Scrum Book | Agile Transformation Book | Blog | Photo | X | LinkedIn | Email
How to Cite This Article
Graffius, Scott M. (2025, May 6). The 3 Vital Rules of Science: What They Are and Why They Matter. Available at: https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/3-vital-rules-of-science-what-they-are-and-why-they-matter.html.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
DOI: (coming soon)
Content Acknowledgements
Names and marks are the property of their respective owners.
Copyright
Copyright © Scott M. Graffius. All rights reserved.
Content on this site—including text, images, videos, and data—may not be used for training or input into any artificial intelligence, machine learning, or automatized learning systems, or published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the express written permission of Scott M. Graffius.