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.
Author

Lucy D’Agostino McGowan

Published

September 25, 2017

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!