3 ms·
One way that journals could actually add value (a concept to which they seem resistant) would be to review the statistical analysis. Statistics is hard and easy
by rkangel 5y ago
One way that journals could actually add value (a concept to which they seem resistant) would be to review the statistical analysis. Statistics is hard and easy to get subtley wrong, and is often an independent skill to the underlying science. If journals had statistics experts to critique the analysis techniques prior to publishing it would be a great improvement in the confidence in which we could read papers.
- Hendrikto 5y agoIf only journals actually wanted to contribute… They just want to skim.
- bigfudge 5y agoI think this is a great idea, but in my experience there are surprisingly few such experts available. In practice, most statisticians not doing active methods research (I'm thinking of 'trial statisticians' mostly here, in CTU's) just cargo cult whatever procedures previous trials used. I guess they would pick up issues around sample size, but without also integrating that with some substantive knowledge about plausible effect sizes I'm not sure what value they would have. Plus, it would reduce the number of publishable papers quite substantially including from high profile authors/groups, so I don't think they want the fight. We should also remember that most journal editors are also involved in publishing this research — they often have no real incentives to make things awkward.