Lehden korkea vaikuttavuuskerroin ei tarkoita laadukasta tilastoanalyysiä/tulosten raportointia. https://t.co/eYN8fXHwkd
2013 study also finds that top journals tend to publish worse science. Small sample though because human coded. Needs a replication with automatic coding. https://t.co/1KiGAFEnO2 https://t.co/FOiQTU3rIs
RT @stephensenn: My explanation as to why commentators commonly get replication probabilities wrong https://t.co/1nU2lCmCld #repligate
My explanation as to why commentators commonly get replication probabilities wrong https://t.co/1nU2lCmCld #repligate
El rigor estadístic de les investigacions publicades per revistes de gran impacte no és necessàriament superior https://t.co/XWgfUh3hQq
"High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" https://t.co/Zoe40bGpuY How have I not seen this paper before? Very nice....
RT @irynakuchma: High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So https://t.co/IhVBcqMuVQ - @ppandelis #coar16
High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So https://t.co/IhVBcqMuVQ - @ppandelis #coar16
#Statistical practices in #scientific journals with high or low #impact factors: https://t.co/KXyxMmkYIz
RT @cittasamatayoga: High impact factor does not mean higher quality!!!!!! http://t.co/OKbBvLTLr3 #IF #impact #science #publish #nature #pr…
High impact factor does not mean higher quality!!!!!! http://t.co/OKbBvLTLr3 #IF #impact #science #publish #nature #progress #impactfactor
High Impact = High #Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily: http://t.co/gSqkZZt3OB
Natureの論文の89%、Scienceの論文の42%が信頼区間や効果量、モデル推定、prospective powerを用いず。High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not … http://t.co/oXDloOhAtp
Natureの論文の89%、Scienceの論文の42%が信頼区間や効果量、モデル推定、prospective powerを用いず。High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not … http://t.co/oXDloOhAtp
Natureの論文の89%、Scienceの論文の42%が信頼区間や効果量、モデル推定、prospective powerを用いず。High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not … http://t.co/oXDloOhAtp
Natureの論文の89%、Scienceの論文の42%が信頼区間や効果量、モデル推定、prospective powerを用いず。High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not … http://t.co/oXDloOhAtp
Still (very) high percentages of empirical papers use just NHST http://t.co/oPBeL5DAtP http://t.co/0VZgYFe12q
@wilbanks Did you see piece? Really interesting - http://t.co/1ogsyQDrUs
@plosone Prevalence of poor statistical practices in high impact journals? Read http://t.co/8bYDI2PqJm to find out
@plosone Prevalence of poor statistical practices in high impact journals? Read http://t.co/8bYDI2PqJm to find out
@plosone Prevalence of poor statistical practices in high impact journals? Read http://t.co/8bYDI2PqJm to find out
@plosone Prevalence of poor statistical practices in high impact journals? Read http://t.co/8bYDI2PqJm to find out
RT @veitchemma @plosone Prevalence of poor statistical practices in high impact journals? Read http://t.co/V17Wmxw8Fq to find out
@plosone Prevalence of poor statistical practices in high impact journals? Read http://t.co/8bYDI2PqJm to find out
@plosone Prevalence of poor statistical practices in high impact journals? Read http://t.co/8bYDI2PqJm to find out
#PLOSONE: High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So http://t.co/BbLD4yTFgx
@plosone Prevalence of poor statistical practices in high impact journals? Read http://t.co/8bYDI2PqJm to find out
@plosone Prevalence of poor statistical practices in high impact journals? Read http://t.co/8bYDI2PqJm to find out
@plosone Prevalence of poor statistical practices in high impact journals? Read http://t.co/8bYDI2PqJm to find out
High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So http://t.co/XyEnCqmaWv
High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So http://t.co/XyEnCqmaWv
@neuroconscience @CurrentBiology The methodology is v weak for an intervention study. confirms http://t.co/BlFkwlrPe5
High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So http://t.co/ykNaP3EvE4
"High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/rFXCYNgPeq
P-value battle raging at http://t.co/dro5lU9zoC
@PLOSONE paper "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/RcTZbMQI4a
Today's post links to this open access @PLOSONE paper "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/PArp7HAutQ
RT @LSEImpactBlog @PLOSONE paper "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/xeHjcJedAm"
RT @LSEImpactBlog: Today's post links to this open access @PLOSONE paper "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/PArp7HAutQ
MT @LSEImpactBlog: Today's post links to this open access @PLOSONE paper, High Impact = High Statistical Standards? http://t.co/hcga1GzMt6
RT @LSEImpactBlog: Today's post links to this open access @PLOSONE paper "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/PArp7HAutQ
Today's post links to this open access @PLOSONE paper "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/PArp7HAutQ
Are high impact journals more statistically rigorous? http://t.co/RUONaDap3t
RT @aglfarquhar: If you use stats, you need to read this http://t.co/fDmDgdr57N
If you use stats, you need to read this http://t.co/fDmDgdr57N
If you use stats, you need to read this http://t.co/fDmDgdr57N
If you use stats, you need to read this http://t.co/fDmDgdr57N
@neuroconscience @CurrentBiology The methodology is v weak for an intervention study. confirms http://t.co/BlFkwlrPe5
Today's must read @PLOS article is: "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/AULGpt9z #OA #stats #JIF
It's ironic that a paper looking at statistical rigour in journals uses Impact Factor as a measure of journal quality http://t.co/A9nosYcK
High impact = high statistical standards ? Not necessarily so : http://t.co/ph1ADWCG1N via @PLOSONE
Medical & science publishing: high impact medical journals lead in improving statistical reporting. http://t.co/ol3RnnC7nF #MotorImpairment
It's ironic that a paper looking at statistical rigour in journals uses Impact Factor as a measure of journal quality http://t.co/A9nosYcK
It's ironic that a paper looking at statistical rigour in journals uses Impact Factor as a measure of journal quality http://t.co/A9nosYcK
It's ironic that a paper looking at statistical rigour in journals uses Impact Factor as a measure of journal quality http://t.co/A9nosYcK
It's ironic that a paper looking at statistical rigour in journals uses Impact Factor as a measure of journal quality http://t.co/A9nosYcK
It's ironic that a paper looking at statistical rigour in journals uses Impact Factor as a measure of journal quality http://t.co/A9nosYcK
#PLOSONE: High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So http://t.co/5H6eJBAo
RT @LlTTerate: High Impact does not necessarily = high statistical standards. Beyond null hypothesis significance testing http://t.co/US3sGXhT #PLOSONE
RT @LlTTerate: High Impact does not necessarily = high statistical standards. Beyond null hypothesis significance testing http://t.co/US3sGXhT #PLOSONE
Agree with @rmounce - this is a must-read: "High Impact = High Statistical Standards?" http://t.co/iyNxrsEi … #OA #stats #JIF
It's ironic that a paper looking at statistical rigour in journals uses Impact Factor as a measure of journal quality http://t.co/A9nosYcK
Today's must read @PLOS article is: "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/AULGpt9z #OA #stats #JIF
I also really like the constructive critical comment (but supportive) on this new @PLOSONE article http://t.co/yrfkXsr1 #OAFTW! #stats
High Impact does not necessarily = high statistical standards. Beyond null hypothesis significance testing http://t.co/US3sGXhT #PLOSONE
Today's must read @PLOS article is: "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/AULGpt9z #OA #stats #JIF
Today's must read @PLOS article is: "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/AULGpt9z #OA #stats #JIF
Agree with @rmounce - this is a must-read: "High Impact = High Statistical Standards?" http://t.co/iyNxrsEi … #OA #stats #JIF
Today's must read @PLOS article is: "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/AULGpt9z #OA #stats #JIF
#PLOSONE: High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So http://t.co/5H6eJBAo
Looks interesting. MT @rmounce: "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/y9BCb563 #OA #stats #JIF
I also really like the constructive critical comment (but supportive) on this new @PLOSONE article http://t.co/yrfkXsr1 #OAFTW! #stats
RT @rmounce: Today's must read @PLOS article is: "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/dBxitpo1 #OA...
Today's must read @PLOS article is: "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/AULGpt9z #OA #stats #JIF
Today's must read @PLOS article is: "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/AULGpt9z #OA #stats #JIF
Today's must read @PLOS article is: "High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So" http://t.co/AULGpt9z #OA #stats #JIF
#PLOSONE: High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So http://t.co/5H6eJBAo
#PLOSONE: High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So http://t.co/5H6eJBAo
#PLOSONE: High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So http://t.co/5H6eJBAo
#PLOSONE: High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So http://t.co/vsgDNvEf
#PLOSONE: High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So http://t.co/v7L69c8Y http://t.co/R1n0yyX1 #research #free
"@deevybee: Low statistical standards in high impact journals http://t.co/0iNrB8pL" Interesting paper.
EB practitioners beware “@SCPHRP: Research: High impact=high statistical standards? Not necessarily so http://t.co/hmF9xtce #PLOS”
Research: High impact=high statistical standards? Not necessarily so http://t.co/75ZvFbN9 #PLOS
"@ingorohlfing: High Impact = High Stat. Standards? Not Necessarily http://t.co/UYpyM3dP not good in @NatureMagazine and @sciencemagazine"
#PLOSONE: High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So http://t.co/tpzjI4gv
RT @profbohns Journals with highest impact (#Science, #Nature) have the lowest statistical standards. http://t.co/0w6rr8ke RT @jayvanbavel
Journals with the highest impact (e.g., #Science, #Nature) have the lowest statistical standards. http://t.co/TYblbUax RT @jayvanbavel
#PLOSONE: High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So http://t.co/y5FPCBqL En esto, las revistas grandes exigen menos.
RT @jayvanbavel: Journals with highest impact (looking at you #Science and #Nature) have lowest statistical standards. http://t.co/ZrM5Q4xE
Journals with the highest impact (e.g., #Science, #Nature) have the lowest statistical standards. http://t.co/TYblbUax RT @jayvanbavel
RT @jayvanbavel: Journals with highest impact (looking at you #Science and #Nature) have lowest statistical standards. http://t.co/ZrM5Q4xE
RT @jayvanbavel: Journals with highest impact (looking at you #Science and #Nature) have lowest statistical standards. http://t.co/ZrM5Q4xE
Journals with the highest impact (I'm looking at you #Science and #Nature) have the lowest statistical standards. http://t.co/kyB57TKe
MT @jayvanbavel: Journals with highest impact (e.g., #Science and #Nature) have lowest statistical standards. http://t.co/H8hUVit8
Journals with the highest impact (I'm looking at you #Science and #Nature) have the lowest statistical standards. http://t.co/kyB57TKe
#PLOSONE: High Impact = High Statistical Standards?http://t.co/PIc1s7c9 shows a.o. that good Instructions to Author may make a difference.
RT @_bto: RT @PLOSONE: High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily So http://t.co/f41nMdFp