On the challenges of drawing conclusions fromp-values just below 0.05

Comment: What p-hacking really looks like: A comment on Masicampo and LaLande (2012)

(2015) Daniël Lakens   QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science

(2015) Megan L. Head et al.   PLOS BIOLOGY

A surge ofp-values between 0.041 and 0.049 in recent decades (but negative results are increasing rapidly too)

(2015) Joost CF de Winter et al.   PeerJ

Publication Bias in Psychology: A Diagnosis Based on the Correlation between Effect Size and Sample Size

(2014) Anton Kühberger et al.   PLoS One

Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience

(2013) Katherine S. Button et al.   NATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE

The Life of p: “Just Significant” Results are on the Rise

(2013) Nathan C. Leggett et al.   QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

A peculiar prevalence of p values just below .05

(2012) E.J. Masicampo et al.   QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries

(2011) Daniele Fanelli   SCIENTOMETRICS

Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases

(2010) Marco Pautasso   SCIENTOMETRICS