scooped again

Two Spanish researchers have shown (original here) that two leading journals routinely publish statistical errors:

The analysis revealed that at least one error appeared in 38 per cent of the Nature papers and 25 per cent of the British Medical Journal papers looked at. Furthermore, the study estimates that four per cent of results reported to be statistically "significant" may not be significant after all.
Yet again, the Spanish study is an example of someone actually doing something I thought of some time ago. (Fortunately for me, I'm usually only pleased when this happens, because I know perfectly well that I'll never do anything with the idea.) I am woefully ignorant of statistics, and probably have published overly simplistic analyses myself (though I am careful about claims of significance, and am confident that I've made no errors there). This sorry state is much more prevalent among biomed researchers than it ought to be, so I'm not suprised by the study's findings. Garcia-Berthou and Alcaraz also make another point upon which I've been known to wax shrewish:
As well as warning researchers and editors to be more careful with data, they also urge the publication of raw data online. "If we had that, we could check the results," Garc�a-Berthou says. "Some journals already publish supplements online, but it's rare, and I think it should become commonplace."
I think it should by now be viewed as low-rent not to make your raw data available online. There's no reason not to do it, unless you're hiding something; if the journal doesn't provide the option, the server space and bandwidth costs are well within reach of any research institution. I'm convinced that it will become a standard part of scientific publishing. (Obdisclosure: I haven't made any of my raw data available online, even though it was about the first thing I thought of when I came across the net, way back in 1993. I could never convince the higher-ups that it was a good idea. I'll start doing it as soon as I'm high enough on the food chain to insist on it, which I hope will be from the next paper onwards, paying for the hosting myself if need be.)


Comments

You reminded me of a principle I learned in college statistics, many years ago. MINITAB, a statistics and number-crunching program, had just been made available, and we could now run all sorts of tests for significance. The professor warned us that if we had a data set of (say) 20 variables, and cross-tested each of them against each of the others, resulting in 190 cross-tests, using a 5% significance level, then we could expect 5% of 190, or 9 to 10, of the correlations to be significant, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anything's going on -- it would be surprising if we found no statistically significant correlations. He made the broader point, too often ignored in the real world, that statistical correlation does not imply causation or actual relationship.

Comment number: 006454   Posted by: Isaac Laquedem on May 29, 2004 12:17 PM from IP: 205.188.116.70

Reminds me of this, one off your list of favs if I remember correctly. :-)

R


 


Magna Est Veritas

Here, in this little Bay,
Full of tumultuous life and great repose,
Where, twice a day,
The purposeless, gay ocean comes and goes,
Under high cliffs, and far from the huge town,
I sit me down.
For want of me the world's course will not fail:
When all its work is done, the lie shall rot;
The truth is great, and shall prevail,
When none cares whether it prevail or not.

- Coventry Patimore


 

Comment number: 006455   Posted by: Ralf on May 31, 2004 05:33 PM from IP: 210.11.153.97

A new Handbook of Data Analysis (published by Sage -- London) includes a very useful chapter on statistical significance. It includes cautions and examples of serious missteps.

Comment number: 006456   Posted by: A E Bryman on June 9, 2004 05:31 AM from IP: 64.12.116.71

Post a comment

















RSS Feed

CC0
To the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this weblog. This work is published from the United States. Further information.


Links:
(formerly Malice Aforethought)
me
spousal unit
Bloglines account
Simpy account
Connotea account
OpenWetWare userpage
monthly irregular column on 3QuarksDaily


Please sign the petition in support of the European Commission's proposed Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate

googlebombs for good
Roe; Wade; Roe v Wade
abortion
Jew
Seldovia Herald


blogroll:

Archives:
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
October 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003









Design thrown together haphazardly by frykitty.
Powered by the inimitable MovableType.