Timeline for Why report test statistics in a publication?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 28, 2021 at 16:36 | answer | added | Billy | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 28, 2021 at 16:08 | history | edited | Matt Krause | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Elaborated a bit in the hopes of getting an answer.
|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 17:05 | history | edited | Matt Krause | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
title change, some minor text edits.
|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 14:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2020 at 17:10 | comment | added | Matt Krause | So @BruceET, is your answer “There’s no particular reason; we just do?” or am I missing something? | |
| Apr 23, 2020 at 15:59 | comment | added | BruceET | If you test multiple hypotheses in the same data, you have to use a method of avoiding false discovery. If you are submitting a paper, follow the style manual. This site discourages chatting in comments. Done here. | |
| Apr 23, 2020 at 15:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackStats/status/1253337877242449928 | ||
| Apr 23, 2020 at 14:31 | comment | added | dariober | @BruceET Sorry I may be hijacking the thread here. You say Report only the 5% of 'significant' ones--anticipated by chance alone. I understand why this is a problem. What I do not understand is why it is blamed on NHST, p-values or frequentist statistics in general. If you report only the extreme posterior distributions without mentioning all the others, wouldn't the problem of reproducibility be the same? | |
| Apr 23, 2020 at 14:09 | history | edited | kjetil b halvorsen♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 22, 2020 at 17:21 | comment | added | BruceET | In my experience one is happier following style manuals than trying to understand them. They are often arbitrary policies set without much scientific input or as a compromise after conflicting input. You can work through scientific societies to try for changes. // As to this particular issue, I see no problem in reporting sample sizes, t-values, and whether one or 2-sided test, in addition to P-value. I've heard few pubs have banned mention of P-values, which I think is going too far. (But if enough other info is revealed, reader can deduce P-values.) | |
| Apr 22, 2020 at 16:01 | comment | added | Matt Krause | I'm...not totally sure about that. I definitely agree those are issues but I'm not seeing how the t-statistic helps address them. I think this style also predates the those position papers (though concerns about NSHT have been around for a while). | |
| Apr 21, 2020 at 19:06 | comment | added | BruceET | Controversial topic: Maybe an overdue attempt to squelch mindless use/abuse of P-values standing alone as 'evidence'--especially rampant in social sciences for some years. Recent position papers by ASA and others have pointed out inappropriate gaming of P-values leading to inappropriate, probably false or demonstrably irreproducible 'discoveries'. // One extreme example: You do complex study. Find several dozen P-values for various 'effects'. Report only the 5% of 'significant' ones--anticipated by chance alone. Don't mention that the rest of the study showed nothing. | |
| Apr 21, 2020 at 18:34 | history | asked | Matt Krause | CC BY-SA 4.0 |