Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Submission + - study: data analysis poor in neuroscience journals (guardian.co.uk)

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This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.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:

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Working...