Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
This collection of social discussions reflects a strong consensus among many researchers calling for a redefinition of statistical significance, especially lowering the p-value cutoff to 0.005, with examples like the mention of 72 authors supporting the move, and debates around its practical implications and scientific validity. The tone varies from supportive to cautious, highlighting both enthusiasm for reform and recognition of ongoing controversy.
Many discussants support the idea of lowering the significance threshold to improve scientific rigor, with phrases like 'most experiments in social sciences should meet this standard' and citing the large group of 72 authors advocating for it.
The topic clearly sparks high curiosity, as evidenced by frequent mentions of debates, lists of proponents, and questions about current practices, indicating strong engagement with the subject.
Several posts reference specific arguments, including methodological critiques and broader implications, showing deep involvement in the discussion rather than superficial opinions.
The widespread sharing of the paper, references to authoritative responses, and notes on the controversy suggest this discussion could influence research standards and practices across fields.
Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change this, Bialek et al. propose the introduction of mandated alpha-level statements by journals and preregistration platforms. https://t.co/usOPxcnjyi
@WendyOrent @K_G_Andersen @ShooguhLipz I have heard advocacy before for re-defining the P-value threshold for a statistically significant result from 0.05 to 0.005 (https://t.co/qkTq3vszf1)...but I never have heard advocacy before for changing it to something well below 0.0009.
Edouard Machery, one of the Redefine Statistical Significance authors: I think in principle Lakens and colleagues might be right that in an idealized scientific context we would want to set up the significance level by looking at the costs of false positive and false negatives." https://t.co/RUAc2xSobk
Settle an argument. Dan thinks no one has published a paper or preprint systematically assessing whether co-authors on the “Redefine Statistical Significance” paper all now use a .005 threshold in their hypothesis-driven research. James thinks someone has. Who’s right?
'Remove, rather than redefine, statistical significance', Amrhein & Greenland https://t.co/OAwZZYJWgM https://t.co/MRoa5r7NDo
I guess Kolmogorov would be on the team “redefine statistical significance?” https://t.co/FQRCcGHnz6
In this video, I explain what p-values are using graphical representations and without complex mathematics. P-values are a fundamental tool in frequentist statistics, but many confusions lead to their incorrect use…
In this talk from Jan 13th, 2020, Ben Prytherch discusses the complexities surrounding statistical significance, referencing key works in the field. He examines critical perspectives on the use of p-values and calls for…
RT @genkuroki: #統計 null P値の閾値による「統計的有意性」自体を廃棄せずに「閾値を0.05から0.005に下げる」という呆れた提案はある種のベイズ学者達によって行われました。 有名な0.005論文はこれ ↓ https://t.co/dC3i6EMZge…
#統計 null P値の閾値による「統計的有意性」自体を廃棄せずに「閾値を0.05から0.005に下げる」という呆れた提案はある種のベイズ学者達によって行われました。 有名な0.005論文はこれ ↓ https://t.co/dC3i6EMZge Benjamin et al. Redefine statistical significance Nature Human Behaviour 2017 https://t.co/GV558ChO2T
I just found out there's a proposal to redefine statistical significance from p < 0.05 to p < 0.005 for claiming new discoveries
@RogertheGS The framing hypothesis is interesting.
Redefine statistical significance: www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Read the three core papers on the "alpha wars" of ~2018 for my grad methods course today (links below), and I asked them to choose the one they most agree with: 5 for abandon statistical significance, 4 for justify your alpha, and 2 for redefine statistical significance. p < .005 not too popular!
@accelereta42 échale un ojo a esto: Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E. J., Berk, R., ... & Johnson, V. E. (2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature human behaviour, 2(1), 6-10.
'Remove, rather than redefine, statistical significance', Amrhein & Greenland https://t.co/OAwZZYJWgM https://t.co/MRoa5r7NDo
@lakens There were a lot of people who were asked to be coauthors of Redefine Statistical Significance and didn't, so be careful in what you assume!
@lakens "Several on this team". I just checked. The only overlap I could see between the Redefine Statistical Significance authors and the editorial list was one person - Simine Vizire. May have missed some but I think you should double check yourself
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
RT @NatureHumBehav: Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change…
Scientists have called to redefine statistical significance, but the recommendations are not widely adopted. To change this, Bialek et al. propose the introduction of mandated alpha-level statements by journals and preregistration platforms. https://t.co/usOPxcnjyi
@aidybarnett @PLOSONE Ironically it seems like the least expected p-values are now those >0.05, maybe we should redefine statistical significance
The three most cited articles in NHB are actually two perspectives and one comment. I think all of them are non-citable and therefore inflate the impact factor (but I'm not 100% sure about these). https://t.co/4MKnq9u4K6 https://t.co/ktohdt8BI8 https://t.co/U45Vp6Ms0E
RT @ResearchHub: Join us in this discussion at @ResearchHub about one of the most fundamental aspects of scientific publishing: The P Value…
Join us in this discussion at @ResearchHub about one of the most fundamental aspects of scientific publishing: The P Value. Benjamin et al suggests a more stringent p-value cutoff of 0.005 vs 0.05 for the discovery of new effects. https://t.co/SLzJOo3xOr #DeSci
Redefine statistical significance | Nature Human Behaviour https://t.co/IVGHWWFEv4
RT @GuyattGH: Very high proportion of articles reporting p < 0.05 and associated replication crisis have prompted calls for #threshold p of…
RT @GuyattGH: Very high proportion of articles reporting p < 0.05 and associated replication crisis have prompted calls for #threshold p of…
RT @GuyattGH: Very high proportion of articles reporting p < 0.05 and associated replication crisis have prompted calls for #threshold p of…
RT @GuyattGH: Very high proportion of articles reporting p < 0.05 and associated replication crisis have prompted calls for #threshold p of…
RT @GuyattGH: Very high proportion of articles reporting p < 0.05 and associated replication crisis have prompted calls for #threshold p of…
Daniel Benjamin, sending a mass email to 50 of his friends: Do you think we should redefine statistical significance? Reply “Yes” if you agree! https://t.co/d0ou9U2QT1
Memory Lane (4 years ago): Why significance testers should reject the argument to “redefine statistical significance”, even if they want to lower the p-value* https://t.co/llSlYvmvdQ
I guess Kolmogorov would be on the team “redefine statistical significance?” https://t.co/FQRCcGHnz6
RT @RubinPsyc: (1) Low statistical standards of evidence “Statistical standards of evidence for claiming new discoveries in many fields of…
RT @RubinPsyc: (1) Low statistical standards of evidence “Statistical standards of evidence for claiming new discoveries in many fields of…
(1) Low statistical standards of evidence “Statistical standards of evidence for claiming new discoveries in many fields of science are simply too low” (Benjamin et al., 2018). https://t.co/nUe08gfZtB
Comment Published: 01 September 2017 Redefine statistical significance Daniel J. Benjamin, James O. Berger, […]Valen E. Johnson Nature Human Behaviour volume 2, pages6–10 (2018)Cite this article https://t.co/i04R2Gt7nM
https://t.co/i04R2Gt7nM Redefine statistical significance Daniel J. Benjamin, James O. Berger, […]Valen E. Johnson Nature Human Behaviour volume 2, pages6–10 (2018)
https://t.co/i04R2Gt7nM Redefine statistical significance Daniel J. Benjamin, James O. Berger, […]Valen E. Johnson Nature Human Behaviour volume 2, pages6–10 (2018)Cite this article 135k Accesses
@n_stenhou @aedwardslevy Who called it Star Wars and not Redefine Statistical Significance
RT @deepgreendesign: Dear @VoiceOfFranky, Does your statistical analysis conform to a p-value of 0.005?
Dear @VoiceOfFranky, Does your statistical analysis conform to a p-value of 0.005?
RT @R_H_Ebright: @WendyOrent @K_G_Andersen @ShooguhLipz I have heard advocacy before for re-defining the P-value threshold for a statistica…
@WendyOrent @K_G_Andersen @ShooguhLipz I have heard advocacy before for re-defining the P-value threshold for a statistically significant result from 0.05 to 0.005 (https://t.co/qkTq3vszf1)...but I never have heard advocacy before for changing it to something well below 0.0009.
@Ayjchan @HL3133 @ClaireBerlinski I have heard advocacy before for re-defining the P-value threshold for a statistically significant result from 0.05 to 0.005 (https://t.co/qkTq3vszf1…)...but I never have heard advocacy before for changing it to something well below 0.0009.
@cshperspectives I have heard advocacy before for re-defining the P-value threshold for a statistically significant result from 0.05 to 0.005 (https://t.co/qkTq3vszf1)...but I never have heard advocacy before for changing it to something well below 0.0009.
@MackayIM I have heard advocacy before for re-defining the P-value threshold for a statistically significant result from 0.05 to 0.005 (https://t.co/KPsmFAsf9z)...but I never have heard advocacy before for changing it to something well below 0.0009.
Redefine Statistical Significance XIX: Monkey Business https://t.co/oOSp8r3QFc In the “hypothesis-free” group, students were simply asked What do you conclude from the #data set?” https://t.co/iauzJRKHQy
I've now also contactd sm of the authors of the paper listed. Interested, @NatureHumBehav ? Short thread reg the paper "Redefine statistical significance", starting above.
Hi @StatModeling , @lakens and others interested. Saw the article "Redefine statistical significance", and some of the following discussion. Would like to add to it, which I don't think had been said, that I think the view on "false positive rate" in eg fig 2 is a bit faulty.
@marlhonherrera @estadoisrael Los niveles de significación estadística son muy bajos "After multivariate adjustment for confounders and mortality risks, the mortality difference remained significant (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09-0.80; P = .03)" Hoy 0.03 es cuestionable vid doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z
RT @FrogHarmless: @kdpsinghlab @maximumcharacte Maybe I should just start interpreting studies where p>0.005 as nulls. https://t.co/mzzI2…
@kdpsinghlab @maximumcharacte Maybe I should just start interpreting studies where p>0.005 as nulls. https://t.co/mzzI21HgVd
Redefine Statistical Significance XIX: Monkey Business | Bayesian Spectacles https://t.co/pBzw27eQt4
Redefine statistical significance https://t.co/LIu5FpysKr まぁp値はそれ以外にも色々問題はあるんですけどね。 https://t.co/yOq9cMVOdj
Redefine Statistical Significance by Edouard Machery | Journal Entries https://t.co/iZvUI0CBo1
Redefine Statistical Significance by Edouard Machery | Journal Entries https://t.co/iZvUI0CBo1
https://t.co/Tl7GfvDifa
A blogpost of direct relevance to a point in the exchange between J. Berger and I at the stat debate. I'll be blogging on this shortly, so see this as background (if interested). https://t.co/daKgTcxvuN
@Consistent_W @daniela_witten - Delampady and Berger: "Lower bounds on bayes factors for multinomial distributions, with application to chi-squared tests of fit" - Sellke et al: "Calibration of p values for testing precise null hypotheses" - Benjamin et al "Redefine statistical significance"
RT @dj3mb: ¿Cansados de resultados no replicables? ¿Hartos del p fishing? ¿Tentados de usar pruebas bayesianas de significación? Mejor ba…
¿Cansados de resultados no replicables? ¿Hartos del p fishing? ¿Tentados de usar pruebas bayesianas de significación? Mejor bajar el valor crítico de p a .005 y listo! "Redefine statistical significance"; 72 autores. https://t.co/BWfX4e3grs
There was another paper I read (Benjamin et al, 2017, “Redefine statistical significance”) that also made a strong argument for lowering alpha down to 0.005. For most experiments in social sciences, you should be able to design a study that can meet that standard. https://t.co/YzfobXomMA
RT @hertzpodcast: Settle an argument. Dan thinks no one has published a paper or preprint systematically assessing whether co-authors on…
RT @hertzpodcast: Settle an argument. Dan thinks no one has published a paper or preprint systematically assessing whether co-authors on…
RT @hertzpodcast: Settle an argument. Dan thinks no one has published a paper or preprint systematically assessing whether co-authors on…
RT @hertzpodcast: Settle an argument. Dan thinks no one has published a paper or preprint systematically assessing whether co-authors on…
Settle an argument. Dan thinks no one has published a paper or preprint systematically assessing whether co-authors on the “Redefine Statistical Significance” paper all now use a .005 threshold in their hypothesis-driven research. James thinks someone has. Who’s right?
How many of the redefine statistical significance authors have been using .005 as their alpha level lately?
@chrisaberson @moreofcomment @lakens I guess I also think if we are going to teach the field to reject p = 0.04 when power is assumed to be low, and that doing so will be the correct decision in 95% of cases, we may as well just redefine statistical significance to be 0.005 and take the subjectivity out of it.
(11/14) a group of outstanding statisticians called for “Redefine statistical significance” (Benjamin et al., 2017; https://t.co/qyH4Ijxhro ) by changing the default P-value threshold for statistical significance from 0.05 to 0.005.
RT @BrianNosek: New Nature Human Behavior paper: 72 of us make the case to redefine statistical significance from .05 to .005. https://t.co…
RT @lakens: Edouard Machery, one of the Redefine Statistical Significance authors: I think in principle Lakens and colleagues might be righ…
RT @lakens: Edouard Machery, one of the Redefine Statistical Significance authors: I think in principle Lakens and colleagues might be righ…
RT @BrianNosek: New Nature Human Behavior paper: 72 of us make the case to redefine statistical significance from .05 to .005. https://t.co…
RT @BrianNosek: New Nature Human Behavior paper: 72 of us make the case to redefine statistical significance from .05 to .005. https://t.co…
Edouard Machery, one of the Redefine Statistical Significance authors: I think in principle Lakens and colleagues might be right that in an idealized scientific context we would want to set up the significance level by looking at the costs of false positive and false negatives." https://t.co/RUAc2xSobk
@NeumanN_PJ From a superficial statistical point of view I would guess that a priori there was around 20 % chance of a false positive result in this study (- compare to Fig 2, Redefine statistical significance, Nature, 2017).
@RobinFondberg @matejka_goran (Det delvis illustrerat ang risk för falskt positiva vid positiva resultat, före undersökning, i Redefine statistical significance, Nature, 2017, Fig 2.) - Vet ej vad du säger om de sakerna?
RT @DrBradleyBoivin: 1/4 “Science is a systematized body of (probable) knowledge, not an accumulation of decisions. The end product of a sc…
PsyArXiv Preprints | Redefine statistical significance https://t.co/mRC08RPTJR
1/4 “Science is a systematized body of (probable) knowledge, not an accumulation of decisions. The end product of a scientific investigation is a degree of confidence in some set of propositions, which then constitutes a basis for decisions.”https://t.co/VIU8wbkCct
Redefine statistical significance. https://t.co/qbxsjXWpIp
On p<0.005; Benjamin et al 2018 Redefine statistical significance https://t.co/e2NP95Kuht https://t.co/b5dfYyVl7N
RT @paperpile: Many psychological studies don't hold up to scrutiny. Is it time to redefine statistical significance? https://t.co/noOFeS6Z…
RT @paperpile: Many psychological studies don't hold up to scrutiny. Is it time to redefine statistical significance? https://t.co/noOFeS6Z…
Many psychological studies don't hold up to scrutiny. Is it time to redefine statistical significance? https://t.co/noOFeS6ZH0
@westwoodsam1 Redefine statistical significance (Runs and hides)
RT @phylogenomics: @ucdavis @ralphhexter At @ucdavis Ioannidis discussing this "Redefine statistical significance" https://t.co/3yBVnBPDoQ…
RT @phylogenomics: @ucdavis @ralphhexter At @ucdavis Ioannidis discussing this "Redefine statistical significance" https://t.co/3yBVnBPDoQ…
@ucdavis @ralphhexter At @ucdavis Ioannidis discussing this "Redefine statistical significance" https://t.co/3yBVnBPDoQ as a temporary but not ideal solution
$AMRN: Amarin (short the stock): Why borderline 0.03 p value for cardiovascular death in REDUCE-IT trial may not be practical in the real world. https://t.co/qVV84KKOLx
@TenanATC @Dr_DeFreitas @XphysNerd @richarddmorey also points out some issues with the redefine statistical significance (.05 --> .005) argument in a few blogposts https://t.co/rGIwJjlv2u
"Should We Redefine Statistical Significance? A Brains Blog Roundtable" http://philosophyofbrains.com/2017/10/02/should-we-redefine-statistical-significance-a-brains-blog-roundtable.aspx
"Remove, rather than redefine, statistical significance" a commentary in Nature Human Behavior on our .005 proposal http://rdcu.be/wbtc
Justify your alpha: a response to "Redefine statistical significance"via @academia academia.edu/34599942/Justi…
Justify your alpha: a response to "Redefine statistical significance"via @academia academia.edu/34599942/Justi…
In his inaugural blog post, @EJWagenmakers counters objections to redefining significance from .05 to .005: https://www.bayesianspectacles.org/redefine-statistical-significance-part-i-sleep-trolls-red-herrings/#more-572
Redefine statistical significance?
Redefine Statistical Significance: An Interview with Jim Berger https://jasp-stats.org/2017/07/27/jimberger/
New Nature Human Behavior paper: 72 of us make the case to redefine statistical significance from .05 to .005. http://osf.io/mky9j
NB
RE
DL
EH
AB
AR
黒K
MD
ND
A
DB
CP
IG
VA
CS
KL
J
SC
WP
K
SS
CO
PA
MB
DG
S
ML
MP
AG
ZH
SD
R
R
IN
OB
PS
み
CP
AR
SG
DM
CL
CL
MR
RC
BL
S
HW
R
AM
GH
CS
X
HF
PG
KM
A
PF
FC
ES
LO
MJ
PC
ND
MM
FH
EP
DJ
Iल
MP
AP
BB
UP
WZ
MB
DK
P
SP
M
SR
JE
BF
AC