It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You can think of the p-value as a “warmer-colder” game for scientific knowledge: a low p-value shouts “warmer,” while a high p-value reads “colder, not much to see here.” It’s a helpful tool, but it’s not perfect. And the threshold that most scientists use is less perfect than some would like.
The p-value was originally devised by French scholar Pierre-Simon Laplace, a contemporary of Napoleon Bonaparte. Sir Ronald A. Fisher later popularized it after a famous experiment involving a lady who could taste differences in virtually identical cups of tea. Fisher proposed a p-value threshold of 0.05, and his ideas laid the groundwork for modern experimentation as it exists today.
originally posted by: vernichter
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vernichter
>They are journals, they are scientific, they accept at random/
You need to look into this thing called "sample size".
So look into it.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vernichter
>You are either not very smart or not very honest.
What exactly is dishonest here? Pick any mid to top tier journal and try submitting any old nonsense and report back.
I see: you are an honest idiot.
originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
Laplace just picked a number, 0.05, with no statistical reasoning! Now people think that it should be at least 0.005, from hundredths to thousandths, to be significant. Physics has an even lower p-value, 0.000 000 3, which something like a quadrillionth.
originally posted by: vernichter
originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
Laplace just picked a number, 0.05, with no statistical reasoning! Now people think that it should be at least 0.005, from hundredths to thousandths, to be significant. Physics has an even lower p-value, 0.000 000 3, which something like a quadrillionth.
In the present experiment you can't rule out the null-hypothesis of randomly-accepting editors even on 0.3 level.
originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: GetHyped
What they showed was that papers with methodological defects (quite feasible in psychology research as it's actually difficult) have a probability of being accepted anyway (the prior paper), and that is plausibly stochastic.
originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: GetHyped
Back in 1982 there wasn't full text search.