This preprint is under consideration at BMC Medical Research Methodology. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Fredi Alexander Diaz-Quijano
Universidade de Sao Paulo
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1134-1930
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: There is a growing trend in using the “statistically significant” term in the scientific literature. However, harsh criticism of this concept motivated the recommendation to withdraw its use of scientific publications. We aimed to validate the support and the feasibility of adherence to this recommendation, among researchers having declared in favor of removing the statistical significance.
Methods: We surveyed signatories of an article published that defended this recommendation, to validate their opinion and ask them about how likely they will retire the concept of statistical significance.
Results: We obtained 151 responses which confirmed the support for the mentioned publication in aspects such as the adequate interpretation of the p-value, the degree of agreement, and the motivations to sign it. However, there was a wide distribution of answers about how likely are they to use the concept of "statistical significance” in future publications. About 42% declared being neutral, or that would likely use it again. We described arguments referred by several signatories and discussed aspects to be considered in the interpretation of research results.
Conclusions: The responses obtained from a proportion of signatories validated their declared position against the use of statistical significance. However, even in this group, the full application of this recommendation does not seem feasible. The arguments related to the inappropriate use of statistical tests should promote more education among researchers and users of scientific evidence.
Keywords
p values, null-hypothesis, statistical inference, Statistical significance
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 2
Posted 15 May, 2020
No community comments so far
Review #1 received
Received 22 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 29 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 27 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 26 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 05 Sep, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 03 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 18 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 11 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 17 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 23 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 05 Sep, 2019
Editor assigned
On 14 Aug, 2019
First submitted
On 13 Aug, 2019
Editor invited
On 13 Aug, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at BMC Medical Research Methodology. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Fredi Alexander Diaz-Quijano
Universidade de Sao Paulo
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1134-1930
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 2
Posted 15 May, 2020
No community comments so far
Review #1 received
Received 22 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 29 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 27 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 26 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 05 Sep, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 03 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 18 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 11 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 17 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 23 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 05 Sep, 2019
Editor assigned
On 14 Aug, 2019
First submitted
On 13 Aug, 2019
Editor invited
On 13 Aug, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: There is a growing trend in using the “statistically significant” term in the scientific literature. However, harsh criticism of this concept motivated the recommendation to withdraw its use of scientific publications. We aimed to validate the support and the feasibility of adherence to this recommendation, among researchers having declared in favor of removing the statistical significance.
Methods: We surveyed signatories of an article published that defended this recommendation, to validate their opinion and ask them about how likely they will retire the concept of statistical significance.
Results: We obtained 151 responses which confirmed the support for the mentioned publication in aspects such as the adequate interpretation of the p-value, the degree of agreement, and the motivations to sign it. However, there was a wide distribution of answers about how likely are they to use the concept of "statistical significance” in future publications. About 42% declared being neutral, or that would likely use it again. We described arguments referred by several signatories and discussed aspects to be considered in the interpretation of research results.
Conclusions: The responses obtained from a proportion of signatories validated their declared position against the use of statistical significance. However, even in this group, the full application of this recommendation does not seem feasible. The arguments related to the inappropriate use of statistical tests should promote more education among researchers and users of scientific evidence.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...