P-values: Misunderstood and misused

Frontiers in Physics

Volumn 4, Issue MAR, 2016, Pages

  Vidgen, Bertie ^a   Yasseri, Taha ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayes; Big data; P hacking; p value; Prevalence; Significance; Statistics

Indexed keywords

PERSONAL COMPUTING;

BAYE; BAYESIAN; FALSE DISCOVERY RATE; LIFE-SCIENCES; P-HACKING; P-VALUES; PREVALENCE; SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHES; SIGNIFICANCE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

BIG DATA;

EID: 85041736080     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2296424X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fphy.2016.00006     Document Type: Short Survey

References (25)

1. Ioannidis, J. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. (2005) 2:e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
2. Ziliak, ST, McCloskey DN. The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs us Jobs, Justice, and Lives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press (2008)
3. Cohen J. The earth is round (p < .05). Am Psychol. (1994) 49:997-1003
4. Lew MJ. To P or not to P: on the evidential nature of P-values and their place in scientific inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:13110081 (2013)
5. Fisher RA. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh: Genesis Publishing Pvt. Ltd. (1925)
6. Sterne JA, Smith GD. Sifting the evidence-what's wrong with significance tests? BMJ (2001) 322:226-31. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7280.226
7. Nuzzo R. Statistical errors. Nature (2014) 506:150-2. doi: 10.1038/506150a
8. Berger JO. Could fisher, jeffreys and neyman have agreed on testing? Stat Sci. (2003) 18:1-32. doi: 10.1214/ss/1056397485
9. Hurlbert SH, Lombardi CM. Final collapse of the Neyman-Pearson decision theoretic framework and rise of the neoFisherian. Ann Zool Fenn. (2009) 46:311-49. doi: 10.5735/086.046.0501
10. Colquhoun D. An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values. R Soc Open Sci. (2014) 1:140216. doi: 10.1098/rsos.140216
11. Biau DJ, Jolles BM, Porcher R. P value and the theory of hypothesis testing: an explanation for new researchers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. (2010) 468:885-92. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1164-4
12. Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol. (2015) 13:e1002165. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165
13. Jager LR, Leek JT. An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature. Biostatistics (2014) 15:1-12. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxt007
14. Lindsay DS. Replication in psychological science. Psychol Sci. (2015). 26:1827-32. doi: 10.1177/0956797615616374
15. Gelman A. Objections to Bayesian statistics. Bayesian Anal. (2008) 3:445-9. doi: 10.1214/08-BA318
16. McGrayne SB. The Theory that Would not Die: How Bayes' Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines, & Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press (2011)
17. Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science (2014) 345:1502-5. doi: 10.1126/science.1255484
18. Head ML, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn AT, Jennions, MD. The extent and consequences of P-Hacking in science. PLoS Biol. (2015) 13:e1002106. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106
19. Aschwanden C. Science Isn't Broken, Five Thirty Eight. Available online at: http://fivethirtyeightcom/features/science-isnt-broken/ (Accessed January 22, 2016), (2015)
20. de Winter JC, and Dodou D. A surge of p-values between 0.041 and 0.049 in recent decades (but negative results are increasing rapidly too). PeerJ (2015) 3:e733. doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.447v4
21. Simonsohn U. Posterior-Hacking: Selective Reporting Invalidates Bayesian Results Also. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School; Draft Paper (2014)
22. Coe R. It's the effect size, stupid: what effect size is and why it is important. In: Paper Presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Exeter (2002)
23. Sullivan GM, Feinn, R. Using effect size-or why the P value is not enough. J Grad Med Educ. (2012) 4:279-82. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1
24. Weissgerber TL, Milic NM, Winham SJ, Garovic VD. Beyond bar and line graphs: time for a new data presentation paradigm. PLoS Biol. (2015) 13:e1002128. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002128
25. Peplow M. Social sciences suffer from severe publication bias. Nature (2014). doi: 10.1038/nature.2014.15787. Available online at: http://www.nature.com/news/social-sciences-suffer-from-severe-publication-bias-1.15787