Volume 41 - Article 32 | Pages 949–952
Editorial: P-values, theory, replicability, and rigour
By Jakub Bijak
References
Burch, T.K. (2003). Demography in a new key: A theory of population theory. Demographic Research 9(11): 263–284.
Burch, T.K. (2018). Model-based demography: Essays on integrating data, technique and theory. Cham: Springer.
Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90(3): 891–904.
Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Mindless statistics. Journal of Socio-Economics 33(5): 587‒606.
Nature Editorial (2019). Significant debate: It’s time to talk about ditching statistical significance. Nature 567: 283.
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251): aac4716.1-8.
Steegen, S., Tuerlinckx, F., Gelman, A., and Vanpaemel, W. (2016). Increasing transparency through a multiverse analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science 11(5): 702–712.
Sterling, T.D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance – or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association 54(285): 30–34.
Wasserstein, R.L. and Lazar, N.A. (2016). The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician 70(2): 129–133.
Wasserstein, R.L., Schirm, A.L., and Lazar, N.A. (2019). Moving to a world beyond ‘p < 0.05’. The American Statistician 73(Suppl. 1): 1–19.