The New Statistics for Better Science: Ask How Much, How Uncertain, and What Else Is Known

The “New Statistics” emphasizes effect sizes, confidence intervals, meta-analysis, and the use of Open Science practices. We present three specific ways in which a New Statistics approach can help improve scientific practice: by reducing overconfidence in small samples, by reducing confirmation bias, and by fostering more cautious judgments of consistency. We illustrate these points through consideration of the literature on oxytocin and human trust, a research area that typifies some of the endemic problems that arise with poor statistical practice. 


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2018.1518266






Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Interview of Elisabeth Bik – Scientific Editorial Director at uBiome

Image
"uBiome is the leader in microbial genomics. We develop microbiome products for both consumers as well as for patients and clinicians.  We have developed two clinical products, SmartGut for gastrointestinal conditions, and SmartJane, which combines vaginal microbiome analysis with STI and HPV genotyping. These clinical products are clinician-prescribed and are reimbursable by most health insurance companies." Elisabeth Bik
Read more

Expression of Concern on article published by uBiome / PubPeer scientist Elisabeth Bik

Image
Concerns were raised about the origin of stool samples used to generate the microbiome dataset. Specifically, concerns were raised about the possible inclusion of samples from participants affected by health conditions or antibiotic usage, and non-humans. The first author has stated that an audit of customer service data held at uBiome in August 2019 identified information indicating that one of the samples submitted by a uBiome user, and labelled as a human gut sample, may have had a non-human origin.
Read more

The troll Leonid Schneider & ‘For Better Science’: crank or cure?

Image
I’ve been aware of Leonid Schneider’s expose blog ever since the piece on the supposed  fraud of Nobel prize-winner Gregg Semenza  appeared on my Twitter feed. Schneider portrays himself as an  under-dog ; the self-styled “ failed scientist ” has taken a liking to pillaring the hypocrisies of the scientific establishment. To be honest, although criticisms of the undertakings of science are always needed, especially when it concerns matters of data integrity, publishing practices, and perverse incentives in academia, I am a bit weary of uncritically listening to someone who appears to have no established career in either science or science journalism (the only pieces published under his own name appear only on the blog he runs). And his pieces do come off with a bit of crankiness.
Read more