Commentary and follow up to p<0.005 suggestion

A recent paper, Redefine Statistical Significance by 72 (😱) co-authors, has caused quite a stir in the statistical community. Our student-run journal club at Vanderbilt will be discussing this contribution at our meeting led by Nathan James this week, so I’ve attempted to create a list of significant responses/commentary that have come out since this paper was posted on PsyArXiv.

This was compiled mostly via a quick Twitter search - please let me know what we are missing!

For what it’s worth, others have found opposing results in a different population:

Please comment/let me know if we have missed anything!


Lucy D'Agostino McGowan image
Lucy D'Agostino McGowan

Currently excited about: observational study methods, translational research, BB-8

comments powered by Disqus