In the last few years I've read a number of papers arguing against the use of null hypothesis significance testing in science, but didn't think to keep a persistent list. A colleague recently asked me for such a list, so I thought I'd ask everyone here to help build it. To start things off, here's what I have so far:

• Johansson (2011) "Hail the impossible: p-values, evidence, and likelihood."
• Haller & Kraus (2002) "Misinterpretation of significance: A problem students share with their teachers."
• Wagenmakers (2007) "A practical solution to the pervasive problem of p-values."
• Rodgers (2010) "The epistemology of mathematical and statistical modeling: A quiet methodological revolution."
• Dixon (1998) "Why scientists value p-values."
• Glover & Dixon (2004) "Likelihood ratios: a simple and flexible statistic for empirical psychologists."

In the last few years I've read a number of papers arguing against the use of null hypothesis significance testing in science, but didn't think to keep a persistent list. A colleague recently asked me for such a list, so I thought I'd ask everyone here to help build it. To start things off, here's what I have so far:

• Johansson (2011) "Hail the impossible: p-values, evidence, and likelihood."
• Haller & Kraus (2002) "Misinterpretation of significance: A problem students share with their teachers."
• Wagenmakers (2007) "A practical solution to the pervasive problem of p-values."
• Rodgers (2010) "The epistemology of mathematical and statistical modeling: A quiet methodological revolution."
• Dixon (1998) "Why scientists value p-values."
• Glover & Dixon (2004) "Likelihood ratios: a simple and flexible statistic for empirical psychologists."