Journal 'Basic and Applied Psychology' bans p<0.05 and 95% confidence intervals

post by Jonathan_Graehl · 2015-02-25T17:15:09.371Z · score: 12 (13 votes) · LW · GW · Legacy · 7 comments

Editorial text isn't very interesting; they call for descriptive statistics and don't recommend any particular analysis.


Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by [deleted] · 2015-02-26T16:14:11.608Z · score: 6 (6 votes) · LW · GW

Andrew Gelman comments.

comment by ChristianKl · 2015-02-26T11:33:44.020Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW · GW

How much does this journal matter?

comment by [deleted] · 2015-02-27T05:14:02.959Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

So little it doesn't even merit an eigenfactor score

My very rough guess is the average tenured professor probably publishes about half their stuff in one of these minor journals, so that doesn't mean you should ignore them. But my impression has been that minor journals tend to be more specialized. Basic and Applied Psychology sounds like a pretty wide open category which is a bit odd.

comment by Dan_Moore · 2015-02-26T02:42:30.513Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

What about p = 0.001?

comment by Manfred · 2015-02-26T06:07:28.143Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

As they explain, at the link, they are realio trulio banning null hypothesis significance testing. This is neat!

comment by Dan_Moore · 2015-02-26T14:37:08.023Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Neat in what sense? (i.e., in a popcorn-worthy or a methodological progress sense?)

Also, does this ban make sense for the entire field of psychology, or perhaps just for 'feelings' parameters that range from icky to awesome?