Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript
Published 2019 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript
Authors
Keywords
-
Journal
eLife
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -
Publisher
eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
Online
2019-10-09
DOI
10.7554/elife.48175
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- COMPare: a prospective cohort study correcting and monitoring 58 misreported trials in real time
- (2019) Ben Goldacre et al. Trials
- The annual cannabis holiday and fatal traffic crashes
- (2019) Sam Harper et al. INJURY PREVENTION
- Moving to a World Beyond “p
- (2019) Ronald L. Wasserstein et al. AMERICAN STATISTICIAN
- Putting the P-Value in its Place
- (2019) Joachim I. Krueger et al. AMERICAN STATISTICIAN
- Correcting Corrupt Research: Recommendations for the Profession to Stop Misuse of p-Values
- (2019) John L. Kmetz AMERICAN STATISTICIAN
- Assessing the Statistical Analyses Used in Basic and Applied Social Psychology After Their p-Value Ban
- (2019) Ronald D. Fricker et al. AMERICAN STATISTICIAN
- The New Statistics for Better Science: Ask How Much, How Uncertain, and What Else Is Known
- (2019) Robert J. Calin-Jageman et al. AMERICAN STATISTICIAN
- Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility
- (2019) Dorothy Bishop NATURE
- Unit of analysis issues in laboratory-based research
- (2018) Nick R Parsons et al. eLife
- Why we need to report more than 'Data were Analyzed by t-tests or ANOVA'
- (2018) Tracey L Weissgerber et al. eLife
- Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models
- (2017) Hannes Matuschek et al. JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE
- Evaluating methods of correcting for multiple comparisons implemented in SPM12 in social neuroscience fMRI studies: an example from moral psychology
- (2017) Hyemin Han et al. Social Neuroscience
- Harms of outcome switching in reports of randomised trials: CONSORT perspective
- (2017) Douglas G Altman et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Harms of outcome switching in reports of randomised trials: CONSORT perspective
- (2017) Douglas G Altman et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Detecting and avoiding likely false-positive findings - a practical guide
- (2016) Wolfgang Forstmeier et al. BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS
- Comparing dependent robust correlations
- (2016) Rand R. Wilcox BRITISH JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL & STATISTICAL PSYCHOLOGY
- Why Is the One-Group Pretest–Posttest Design Still Used?
- (2016) Thomas R. Knapp Clinical Nursing Research
- 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility
- (2016) Monya Baker NATURE
- The anova to mixed model transition
- (2016) Matthieu P. Boisgontier et al. NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
- Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates
- (2016) Anders Eklund et al. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- Publication bias and the canonization of false facts
- (2016) Silas Boye Nissen et al. eLife
- A Bayesian Perspective on the Reproducibility Project: Psychology
- (2016) Alexander Etz et al. PLoS One
- Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
- (2015) SCIENCE
- Promoting an open research culture
- (2015) B. A. Nosek et al. SCIENCE
- Evidence of Experimental Bias in the Life Sciences: Why We Need Blind Data Recording
- (2015) Luke Holman et al. PLOS BIOLOGY
- An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values
- (2014) D. Colquhoun Royal Society Open Science
- Bias in a common EEG and MEG statistical analysis and how to avoid it
- (2013) J.M. Kilner CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
- Post-hoc data analysis
- (2013) Douglas Curran-Everett et al. Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology
- Replication, statistical consistency, and publication bias
- (2013) Gregory Francis JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY
- Does Chocolate Consumption Really Boost Nobel Award Chances? The Peril of Over-Interpreting Correlations in Health Studies
- (2013) Pierre Maurage et al. JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
- Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
- (2013) Katherine S. Button et al. NATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE
- Improving standards in brain-behavior correlation analyses
- (2012) Guillaume A. Rousselet et al. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
- How to identify science being bent: The tobacco industry's fight to deny second-hand smoking health hazards as an example
- (2012) Kenneth Rochel de Camargo SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
- Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance
- (2011) Sander Nieuwenhuis et al. NATURE NEUROSCIENCE
- Everything You Never Wanted to Know about Circular Analysis, but Were Afraid to Ask
- (2010) Nikolaus Kriegeskorte et al. JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
- Statistical and clinical significance, and how to use confidence intervals to help interpret both
- (2010) Judith Fethney Australian Critical Care
- Explorations in statistics: the bootstrap
- (2009) Douglas Curran-Everett ADVANCES IN PHYSIOLOGY EDUCATION
- The Principle of Inverse Effectiveness in Multisensory Integration: Some Statistical Considerations
- (2009) Nicholas P. Holmes BRAIN TOPOGRAPHY
- How does multiple testing correction work?
- (2009) William S Noble NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
- Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: the dangers of double dipping
- (2009) Nikolaus Kriegeskorte et al. NATURE NEUROSCIENCE
- Comparing a single case with a control sample: Refinements and extensions
- (2009) Michael C. Corballis NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
- The principled control of false positives in neuroimaging
- (2009) Craig M. Bennett et al. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
- What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?
- (2008) Sara Schroter et al. JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE
Create your own webinar
Interested in hosting your own webinar? Check the schedule and propose your idea to the Peeref Content Team.
Create NowBecome a Peeref-certified reviewer
The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.
Get Started