Environmental Modelling and Software, volume 114, pages 29-39

Why so many published sensitivity analyses are false: A systematic review of sensitivity analysis practices

F. Campolongo 1, 2
Ksenia Aleksankina 3
William Becker 4
Pamela Fennell 5, 6, 7
Federico Ferretti 4
N Holst 8
Sushan Li 9
Q. Wu 10
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2019-04-01
scimago Q1
SJR1.331
CiteScore9.3
Impact factor4.8
ISSN13648152, 18736726
Environmental Engineering
Software
Ecological Modeling
Abstract
Sensitivity analysis provides information on the relative importance of model input parameters and assumptions. It is distinct from uncertainty analysis, which addresses the question ‘How uncertain is the prediction?’ Uncertainty analysis needs to map what a model does when selected input assumptions and parameters are left free to vary over their range of existence, and this is equally true of a sensitivity analysis. Despite this, many uncertainty and sensitivity analyses still explore the input space moving along one-dimensional corridors leaving space of the input factors mostly unexplored. Our extensive systematic literature review shows that many highly cited papers (42% in the present analysis) fail the elementary requirement to properly explore the space of the input factors. The results, while discipline-dependent, point to a worrying lack of standards and recognized good practices. We end by exploring possible reasons for this problem, and suggest some guidelines for proper use of the methods.

Top-30

Journals

5
10
15
20
25
30
5
10
15
20
25
30

Publishers

20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated only for publications connected to researchers, organizations and labs registered on the platform.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Share
Cite this
GOST | RIS | BibTex
Found error?