The first portion of the article entirely focuses on multiple testing. If you don't perform alpha spending or Bonferroni-type correction despite looking multipl

The first portion of the article entirely focuses on multiple testing. If you don't perform alpha spending or Bonferroni-type correction despite looking multiple times at your data, you will - of course! - find spurious associations. This is simply bad science and/or lazy refereeing on the part of the journals. In human genetics we have Mark Daly, David Altshuler, and Eric Lander to thank for doing the thoughtful theoretical work beforehand to identify the alpha for identifying genomewide significance for any study: 5E-8. To my knowledge, GWAS results are much less commonly found to be invalid in a later study. The message is this: everyone knows at least one method of correction for multiple testing, and virtually everyone knows that they should be doing this. No journal should publish papers that merely show nominal, instead of corrected, P values.