Sure, but then please still publish (or at least publicize) the nulls.
RT @BrianNosek: Pandemics can unite us all against a common foe, p<.05.
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
SAY IT AGAIN.
Words of wisdom.
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
Those following me for a while know that I don't say this lightly. While in this crisis, @lakens is right. We can aim for better reforms later when we have the time. One caveat: uncertainty is no excuse for inaction when the plausible scenarios are not eq
Re: yesterday's discussion on alpha levels
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
RT @BrianNosek: Pandemics can unite us all against a common foe, p<.05. https://t.co/HpV2a0Iyub
RT @BrianNosek: Pandemics can unite us all against a common foe, p<.05. https://t.co/HpV2a0Iyub
RT @BrianNosek: Pandemics can unite us all against a common foe, p<.05.
Pandemics can unite us all against a common foe, p<.05.
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
RT @R__INDEX: I disagree. There are two types of research. 1. Basic research, no immediate relevance. Let the dust settle. 2. Immediate r…
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
At times like these, we need good reviews of the literature that focus on what we know and what works. All this stuff about p values: not relevant until you know what’s known already. Also, when applying things IRL, you need a decent effect size.
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
I disagree. There are two types of research. 1. Basic research, no immediate relevance. Let the dust settle. 2. Immediate research, such as treatments. Relax alpha. I heard that this was done to look for AIDS treatments that work. We cannot afford false
Wow. I was just wondering what the EU version of the Waffle House Threat Index was, and I think I've found it
Alpha officially re-defined as .005 indefinitely.
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
RT @lakens: OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona rela…
OK, I am just going to say it: At these times, we should not be divided. As researchers are massively rushing to do corona related research, I am standing united with my Redefine Significance colleagues. Until further notice: Alpha levels to 0.005. https:/
RT @tdienlin: In the tradition of @lakens et al's https://t.co/53ch9GItCm or https://t.co/ySKNibXv48, we set up a google doc, in which we'…
In the tradition of @lakens et al's https://t.co/53ch9GItCm or https://t.co/ySKNibXv48, we set up a google doc, in which we've started to work on an agenda for #opencommunication. Overall, more than 30 people worked on the project! (5/11)
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
色々突っ込みどころが満載で… https://t.co/rbqtIdit9x
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
@jp_consultant こちらのツイートで紹介されている提言です。 https://t.co/JLnbOg69ZM
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @YmNr_DevEcon: これがもし一般的になったら、より確かなevidenceが形成されていったり、有意でない結果の解釈を頑張る論文が増えるたりするのか、それともむしろphackingやmultiple testやpublication biasを増やしてしまいうる…
これがもし一般的になったら、より確かなevidenceが形成されていったり、有意でない結果の解釈を頑張る論文が増えるたりするのか、それともむしろphackingやmultiple testやpublication biasを増やしてしまいうるのか、気になる
すげー。インパクト評価界隈はどうなるんかな。まだ、世銀のブログでは取り上げられてない様子。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @myamadakg: https://t.co/nPe16RX1fL 有意水準は5%から0.5%へってことか。政治学者もかなり名前を連ねている提言。
RT @isnki: Redefine statistical significance | Nature Human Behaviour “We propose to change the default P-value threshold for statistical…
RT @isnki: Redefine statistical significance | Nature Human Behaviour “We propose to change the default P-value threshold for statistical…
Redefine statistical significance | Nature Human Behaviour “We propose to change the default P-value threshold for statistical significance from 0.05 to 0.005 for claims of new discoveries.” https://t.co/aM4MRx84HV
"findings that are narrowly significant are often non-robust to arbitrary modeling choices" yes yes yes
@derbruemmer I never had a strong opinion on the “redefine statistical significance” wars, but these days I do feel like a lower threshold would provide some damage control https://t.co/9GlqCm2uXk
RT @abalzeau: si le but est de lutter contre le manque de reproductibilité des études, il y a mieux à faire ! Mettre vraiment les données d…
RT @abalzeau: si le but est de lutter contre le manque de reproductibilité des études, il y a mieux à faire ! Mettre vraiment les données d…
si le but est de lutter contre le manque de reproductibilité des études, il y a mieux à faire ! Mettre vraiment les données dans les papiers, décrire les méthodes, détailler, expliquer, laisser reproduire. En cherchant bien, on trouve tjs un moyen d'être s
RT @mblum_g: Read the nice paper advocating for p<0.005 instead of p<0.05 https://t.co/zDZuV3sFoT Their main claim is " the P < 0.005 stand…
RT @mblum_g: Read the nice paper advocating for p<0.005 instead of p<0.05 https://t.co/zDZuV3sFoT Their main claim is " the P < 0.005 stand…
RT @mblum_g: Read the nice paper advocating for p<0.005 instead of p<0.05 https://t.co/zDZuV3sFoT Their main claim is " the P < 0.005 stand…
RT @mblum_g: Read the nice paper advocating for p<0.005 instead of p<0.05 https://t.co/zDZuV3sFoT Their main claim is " the P < 0.005 stand…
RT @mblum_g: Read the nice paper advocating for p<0.005 instead of p<0.05 https://t.co/zDZuV3sFoT Their main claim is " the P < 0.005 stand…
Read the nice paper advocating for p<0.005 instead of p<0.05 https://t.co/zDZuV3sFoT Their main claim is " the P < 0.005 standard would reduce the false positive rate to levels we judge to be reasonable. " However they compute FDR instead of FPR.
RT @DeepSingularity: Redefining the Statistical Significance of p-value. #BigData #DataScience #Statistics HT @gp_pulipaka https://t.co/14…
RT @DeepSingularity: Redefining the Statistical Significance of p-value. #BigData #DataScience #Statistics HT @gp_pulipaka https://t.co/14…
@omlazo P-value should be 0.005 for new discoveries https://t.co/xPRp7Vdqi3
@Jimnosredna I don't think that's true! The strongest predictor for replication in the large-scale efforts is low p-values. I hope you'll read the article we published on this for a more extended rationale: https://t.co/GPabQHsgC3 https://t.co/EfF0719Dn8.
@WallinderJ @erikvestin @asaplsnr Finns även rörelse att sänka gränsen för vad som är signifikant. https://t.co/B3aka2fUDC
@EekFrida Ja, helheten, absolut. Ang signifikansnivån: Sett denna, och då ffa Fig 2 med tillhörande text. Var så jag kom in på det med "prior" och "posterior", (och likheten för med pretest-sannolikhet i kliniskt arbete). https://t.co/xB4RMeTa8n
RT @BrendanNyhan: Despite all the problems with p-values, null hypothesis significance testing isn't going away anytime soon. Given that, I…
RT @BrendanNyhan: Despite all the problems with p-values, null hypothesis significance testing isn't going away anytime soon. Given that, I…
Despite all the problems with p-values, null hypothesis significance testing isn't going away anytime soon. Given that, I think these replication stats support our recommended p<.005 threshold (https://t.co/GPabQHsgC3) quite well https://t.co/rpLfyFPtr
@PJakiela @jhaushofer @AnneFitz13 galaxy brain: p<.05 is actually not very strong evidence. we should use higher thresholds! https://t.co/GPabQHsgC3
Redefine statistical significance. https://t.co/qbxsjXWpIp
(1/5) The discussion of p-values & NHST can be a bit overwhelming, but here are some simple takeaways from a not-so-numbersy ecologist, who intends to keep using p-values: 1) Replace p<0.05 with p<0.005 (0.005<p<0.05 provides 'suggestive
@KiraboJackson although part of the problem is using a p value of 0.05, our former colleague dan benjamin for example advocates 0.005 or lower. https://t.co/yB8CElopQ6