Follow up to Johnson et al Post

October 20, 2013

[This article was first published on bayesianbiologist » Rstats, and kindly contributed to R-bloggers]. (You can report issue about the content on this page here)
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.

Last week I posted a comment on a paper by Neil Johnson and colleagues that I now regret. The comment amounted to a bit of statistical pedantry on my part regarding some of the wording in the paper. It was my wording in this post, and specifically the title, which would have benefited from some additional consideration before publishing. In the post, I refer to the p-value fallacy but I would like to make clear that in no way is the paper itself fallacious. The wording I took issue with in no way invalidates nor debunks the findings of this paper.

The paper’s lead author has written a response in the comments of the original post.

I believe blogging and open conversation about scientific publications to be an important part of the scientific process. However, by associating the word ‘fallacy’ with an entire paper, I fear that this may have unjustly damaged the reputation of the paper and its authors.

I sincerely hope that this post will do some good toward righting this error.

To leave a comment for the author, please follow the link and comment on their blog: bayesianbiologist » Rstats. offers daily e-mail updates about R news and tutorials about learning R and many other topics. Click here if you're looking to post or find an R/data-science job.
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.

If you got this far, why not subscribe for updates from the site? Choose your flavor: e-mail, twitter, RSS, or facebook...

Comments are closed.

Search R-bloggers


Never miss an update!
Subscribe to R-bloggers to receive
e-mails with the latest R posts.
(You will not see this message again.)

Click here to close (This popup will not appear again)