IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/gmfs9.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why is the statistical revolution not progressing? Vicious cycle of the scientific reform

Author

Listed:
  • Bialek, Michal

    (University of Waterloo)

  • Misiak, Michał

    (University of Wroclaw)

  • Dziekan, Martyna

Abstract

To analyze the results of the research, behavioral scientists widely use a statistical rule that sets the significance level to 0.05. Recently, two recommendations on how to improve statistical inference were published: to redefine statistical significance to 0.005, and to select and justify the alpha. We analyzed the empirical work that cited the original recommendation papers, as well as the papers published by the scientist that co-authored the publications. About half of the numerous papers citing these recommendations adhered to them already in the first year since their publication. What is striking, the original authors that proposed the recommendations followed their own recommendations only in 6% of their empirical work. We surveyed the authors asking them to identify major obstacles they experienced while trying to implement their own recommendations, and obstacles they think others could expect or experience.

Suggested Citation

  • Bialek, Michal & Misiak, Michał & Dziekan, Martyna, 2021. "Why is the statistical revolution not progressing? Vicious cycle of the scientific reform," OSF Preprints gmfs9, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:gmfs9
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/gmfs9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/614c71d615e9a4004b923c2f/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/gmfs9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. Georgios Gerasimou, 2016. "Asymmetric dominance, deferral, and status quo bias in a behavioral model of choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 295-312, February.
    3. Abel Brodeur & Nikolai Cook & Anthony Heyes, 2020. "Methods Matter: p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Causal Analysis in Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(11), pages 3634-3660, November.
    4. Megan L Head & Luke Holman & Rob Lanfear & Andrew T Kahn & Michael D Jennions, 2015. "The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," IZA Discussion Papers 15478, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Uwe Hassler & Marc‐Oliver Pohle, 2022. "Unlucky Number 13? Manipulating Evidence Subject to Snooping," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 90(2), pages 397-410, August.
    3. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    4. Graham Elliott & Nikolay Kudrin & Kaspar Wüthrich, 2022. "Detecting p‐Hacking," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(2), pages 887-906, March.
    5. Stephan B Bruns & John P A Ioannidis, 2016. "p-Curve and p-Hacking in Observational Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    6. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell us about p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Online Experiments," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1157, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    7. Felix Chopra & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Andreas Stegmann, 2024. "The Null Result Penalty," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(657), pages 193-219.
    8. Graham Elliott & Nikolay Kudrin & Kaspar Wuthrich, 2022. "The Power of Tests for Detecting $p$-Hacking," Papers 2205.07950, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    9. Martin E Héroux & Janet L Taylor & Simon C Gandevia, 2015. "The Use and Abuse of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Modulate Corticospinal Excitability in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-10, December.
    10. Pierre J C Chuard & Milan Vrtílek & Megan L Head & Michael D Jennions, 2019. "Evidence that nonsignificant results are sometimes preferred: Reverse P-hacking or selective reporting?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-7, January.
    11. Lars Ole Schwen & Sabrina Rueschenbaum, 2018. "Ten quick tips for getting the most scientific value out of numerical data," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, October.
    12. Adriano Koshiyama & Nick Firoozye, 2019. "Avoiding Backtesting Overfitting by Covariance-Penalties: an empirical investigation of the ordinary and total least squares cases," Papers 1905.05023, arXiv.org.
    13. Guillaume Coqueret, 2023. "Forking paths in financial economics," Papers 2401.08606, arXiv.org.
    14. Danielle V. Handel & Eric A. Hanushek, 2024. "Contexts of Convenience: Generalizing from Published Evaluations of School Finance Policies," Evaluation Review, , vol. 48(3), pages 461-494, June.
    15. Jeremy Arkes, 2020. "Teaching Graduate (and Undergraduate) Econometrics: Some Sensible Shifts to Improve Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Usefulness," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-23, September.
    16. Piotr Bialowolski & Dorota Weziak-Bialowolska & Eileen McNeely, 2021. "The Role of Financial Fragility and Financial Control for Well-Being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 1137-1157, June.
    17. Tracey L Weissgerber & Vesna D Garovic & Jelena S Milin-Lazovic & Stacey J Winham & Zoran Obradovic & Jerome P Trzeciakowski & Natasa M Milic, 2016. "Reinventing Biostatistics Education for Basic Scientists," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-12, April.
    18. Cantone, Giulio Giacomo, 2023. "The multiversal methodology as a remedy of the replication crisis," MetaArXiv kuhmz, Center for Open Science.
    19. Klaus E Meyer & Arjen Witteloostuijn & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk, 2017. "What’s in a p? Reassessing best practices for conducting and reporting hypothesis-testing research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(5), pages 535-551, July.
    20. David G Jenkins & Pedro F Quintana-Ascencio, 2020. "A solution to minimum sample size for regressions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-15, February.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:gmfs9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.