Ironing out the statistical wrinkles in "ten ironic rules"

NeuroImage

Volumn 81, Issue , 2013, Pages 499-502

  Lindquist, Martin A ^a   Caffo, Brian ^a   Crainiceanu, Ciprian ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; KNOWLEDGE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NEUROIMAGING; NOTE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PUBLICATION; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS;

NEUROIMAGING; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84880812523     PISSN: 10538119     EISSN: 10959572     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.02.056     Document Type: Note

References (8)

1. Bernardo J.M., Smith A.F.M. Bayesian Theory 2000, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
2. Breiman L. Statistical modeling: the two cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author). Stat. Sci. 2001, 16(3):199-231.
3. Casella G., Berger R. Statistical Inference 2001, Duxbury Press.
4. Friston K. Ten ironic rules for non-statistical reviewers. Neuroimage 2012, 61(4):1300-1310.
5. Kriegeskorte N., Lindquist M., Nichols T., Poldrack R., Vul E. Everything you never wanted to know about circular analysis, but were afraid to ask. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 2010, 30(9):1551-1557.
6. Leek J., Taub M., Pineda F. Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy. PLoS One 2011, 6(11):e26895.
7. Lindley D.V. A statistical paradox. Biometrika 1957, 44:187-192.
8. Lindquist M., Gelman A. Correlations and multiple comparisons in functional imaging: a statistical perspective (commentary on Vul et al., 2009). Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 4:310-313.