Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Submission + - study: data analysis poor in neuroscience journals (

doug141 writes: Analyzing for a difference is easy. But analyzing a difference of a differences is done incorrectly half the time in studies published in neuroscience journals.
Nieuwenhuis looked at 513 papers published in five prestigious neuroscience journals over two years. In half the 157 studies where this error could have been made, it was. They broadened their search to 120 cellular and molecular articles in Nature Neuroscience, during 2009 and 2010: they found 25 studies committing this fallacy, and not one single paper analysed differences in effect sizes correctly.

This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

study: data analysis poor in neuroscience journals

Comments Filter:

It's great to be smart 'cause then you know stuff.