Statistical rigor and the perils of chance

eNeuro

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 531-533

  Button, Katherine S ^a  

^a University of Bath   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EFFECT SIZE; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FUNDING; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS; NEUROSCIENCE; NOTE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ECONOMICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; MOTIVATION; PERSONNEL; PROCEDURES; PSYCHIATRY; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLISHING; STATISTICS;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; MOTIVATION; NEUROSCIENCES; PSYCHIATRY; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84993979084     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23732822     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0030-16.2016     Document Type: Note

References (35)

1. Begley CG, Ellis LM (2012) Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483: 531-533. CrossRef Medline
2. Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ES, Munafò MR (2013) Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 14: 365-376. CrossRef Medline
3. Button KS, Lawrence NS, Chambers CD, Munafò MR (2016) Instilling scientific rigour at the grassroots. Psychologist 29: 158-167.
4. Chambers CD (2013) Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex 49: 609-610. CrossRef Medline
5. Dickersin K, Rennie D (2012) The evolution of trial registries and their use to assess the clinical trial enterprise. JAMA 307: 1861-1864. CrossRef Medline
6. Djulbegovic B, Kumar A, Glasziou P, Miladinovic B, Chalmers I (2013) Medical research: trial unpredictability yields predictable therapy gains. Nature 500: 395-396. CrossRef Medline
7. Fanelli D (2010a) Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PLoS One 5: e10271 CrossRef Medline
8. Fanelli D (2010b) "Positive" results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS One 5: e10068 CrossRef Medline
9. Gelman A, Carlin J (2014) Beyond power calculations: assessing type S (sign) and type M (magnitude) errors. Perspect Psychol Sci 9: 641-651. CrossRef Medline
10. Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2: e124 CrossRef Medline
11. John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2012) Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol Sci 23: 524-532. CrossRef Medline
12. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG (2010) Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 8: e1000412 CrossRef Medline
13. Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, Austin CP, Blumenstein R, Bradley EW, Crystal RG, Darnell RB, Ferrante RJ, Fillit H, Finkelstein R, Fisher M, Gendelman HE, Golub RM, Goudreau JL, Gross RA, Gubitz AK, Hesterlee SE, Howells DW, Huguenard J, et al. (2012) A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 490: 187-191. CrossRef
14. Macleod MR, van der Worp HB, Sena ES, Howells DW, Dirnagl U, Donnan GA (2008) Evidence for the efficacy of NXY-059 in experimental focal cerebral ischaemia is confounded by study quality. Stroke 39: 2824-2829. CrossRef Medline
15. Moore GE (1998) Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Proc IEEE 86: 82-85. CrossRef
16. Munafò M, Noble S, Browne WJ, Brunner D, Button K, Ferreira J, Holmans P, Langbehn D, Lewis G, Lindquist M, Tilling K, Wagenmakers EJ, Blumenstein R (2014) Scientific rigor and the art of motorcycle maintenance. Nat Biotechnol 32: 871-873. CrossRef Medline
17. Munafò MR, Flint J (2014) The genetic architecture of psychophysiological phenotypes. Psychophysiology 51: 1331-1332. CrossRef Medline
18. Munafò MR, Stothart G, Flint J (2009) Bias in genetic association studies and impact factor. Mol Psychiatry 14: 119-120. CrossRef Medline
19. Nature (2013) Announcement: reducing our irreproducibility. Nature 496: 398 CrossRef
20. Nuzzo R (2015) Fooling ourselves. Nature 526: 182-185. CrossRef
21. Open Science Collaboration (2015) PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349: aac4716
22. Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P, Macleod M, Mignini LE, Jayaram P, Khan KS (2007) Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ 334: 197 CrossRef Medline
23. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K (2011) Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov 10: 712 CrossRef Medline
24. Rennie D (2001) CONSORT revised: improving the reporting of randomized trials. JAMA 285: 2006-2007. Medline
25. Rosenthal R (1979) The "File Drawer Problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull 86: 638-641. CrossRef
26. Schillebeeckx M, Maricque B, Lewis C (2013) The missing piece to changing the university culture. Nat Biotechnol 31: 938-941. CrossRef Medline
27. Schweinsberg M, Madan N, Vianello M, Sommer SA, Jordan J, Tierney W, Awtrey E, Zhu LL, Diermeier D, Heinze JE, Srinivasan M, Tannenbaum D, Bivolaru E, Dana J, Davis-Stober CP, du Plessis C, Gronau QF, Hafenbrack AC, Liao EY, Ly A, et al. (2016) The pipeline project: pre-publication independent replications of a single laboratory’s research pipeline. J Exp Social Psychol. Advance online publication. CrossRef
28. Scott S, Kranz JE, Cole J, Lincecum JM, Thompson K, Kelly N, Bostrom A, Theodoss J, Al-Nakhala BM, Vieira FG, Ramasubbu J, Heywood JA (2008) Design, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS. Amyotroph Lateral Scler 9: 4-15. CrossRef Medline
29. Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2010) Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med 8: 24 CrossRef
30. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U (2011) False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci 22: 1359-1366. CrossRef Medline
31. Sterne JA, Davey Smith G (2001) Sifting the evidence: what’s wrong with significance tests? BMJ 322: 226-231. Medline
32. Steward O, Popovich PG, Dietrich WD, Kleitman N (2012) Replication and reproducibility in spinal cord injury research. Exp Neurol 233: 597-605. CrossRef Medline
33. Taleb NN (2007). Fooled by randomness: the hidden role of chance in life and in the markets. Penguin: London.
34. Economist (2013). How science goes wrong. In: The Economist, pp 23-27. London.
35. van Dijk D, Manor O, Carey LB (2014) Publication metrics and success on the academic job market. Curr Biol 24: R516-R517. CrossRef Medline