3 ms·
Ranking Fields by p-Value Suspiciousness
- Rastonbury 2y agoDoes this analysis remove the effect of publication bias? It is not clear to me how the author did this although they do call it out
- moi2388 2y agoThat’s what I was thinking as well.
- ivansavz 2y agoThe author discusses this in footnote 3: https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/ranking-fields-by-p-value-suspiciousness#footnote-3-116419656 https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/ranking-fields-by-p-value-suspici... > Alternative explanation I: Nonsignificant results may not be reported at all and thus they won’t appear in the dataset. > This cannot explain the results. Remember that when results should be significant because you have adequate power to detect a real effect, only a small percentage of p-values will be in the 0.05 to 0.01 range. People should be reporting p-values that are much lower for typical significant effects, but they aren’t: they're reporting suspicious effects. Publication bias is usually a bias towards significance not a bias towards a p-value between 0.05 and 0.01. People adjust their marginal estimates of interest to get at least below 0.05 but they don’t take their extremely significant estimates and adjust them so they’re in the suspicious range.
- readthenotes1 2y agoEconomics seems to be as powerful as astrology, other fields less so...