In Search of the Significant p. Its Influence on the Credibility of Publications

Jorge Thierer


Fanelli D. “Positive” results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS One 2010;5:e10068.

Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011;10:712.

Open Science C. PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015;349:aac4716.

Lew MJ. A Reckless Guide to P-values: Local Evidence, Global Errors. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2020;257:223-56.

Akobeng AK. Understanding type I and type II errors, statistical power and sample size. Acta Paediatr 2016;105:605-9.

Forstmeier W, Wagenmakers EJ, Parker TH. Detecting and avoiding likely false-positive findings - a practical guide. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2017;92:1941-68.

Ioannidis JPA. The Proposal to Lower P Value Thresholds to .005.JAMA 2018;319:1429-30.

Goodman S. A dirty dozen: twelve p-value misconceptions. SeminHematol 2008;45:135-40.

Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature 2019;567:305-7.

Ioannidis JPA. Retiring statistical significance would give bias a free pass. Nature 2019;567:461.

Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false.PLoS Med 2005;2:e124.

Goodman SN. Multiple comparisons, explained. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:807-12; discussion 15.

Wicherts JM, Veldkamp CL, Augusteijn HE, Bakker M, van Aert RC,van Assen MA. Degrees of Freedom in Planning, Running, Analyzing, and Reporting Psychological Studies: A Checklist to Avoid p-Hacking.

Front Psychol 2016;7:1832.

Fraser H, Parker T, Nakagawa S, Barnett A, Fidler F. Questionable

research practices in ecology and evolution. PLoS One.


Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. False-positive psychology:

undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting

anything as significant. Psychol Sci 2011;22:1359-66.https://doi.


Ulrich R, Miller J. p-hacking by post hoc selection with multiple opportunities: Detectability by skewness test?: Comment on Simonsohn,Nelson, and Simmons (2014). J Exp Psychol Gen 2015;144:1137-45.

Kerr NL. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 1998;2:196-217.

Wicherts JM. The Weak Spots in Contemporary Science (and Howto Fix Them). Animals (Basel) 2017;7(12).

Pepys MB. Science and serendipity. Clin Med (Lond) 2007;7:562-78.

Blumenthal-Barby JS, Krieger H. Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Med Decis Making 2015;35:539-57.

Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD, Breckler SJ, et al. SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. Promoting an open research culture.Science 2015;348:1422-5.

Yamada Y. How to Crack Pre-registration: Toward Transparent and Open Science. Front Psychol 2018;9:1831.

Miyakawa T. No raw data, no science: another possible source of the reproducibility crisis. Mol Brain 2020;13:24.

Full Text


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Licencia Creative Commons
The documents published in this journal are under the licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-Compartir-Igual 2.5 Argentina.

Revista argentina de cardiología. ISSN en línea 1850-3748. Argentine journal of cardiology (English ed. Online ISSN 2314-2286) Sociedad Argentina de Cardiología. Azcuénaga 980 (C1115AAD),Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, República Argentina. Tel. (54 11) 4961-6027/8/9 Fax: 4961-6020