Reply to Gelman, Gaudart, Pericchi: More reasons to revise standards for statistical evidence

DOI10.1073/PNAS.1400338111MaRDI QIDQ2962225zbMATH OpenOpenAlexWikidataFDO

Authors V. Johnson

Publication date 16 February 2017

Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400338111

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Foundations and philosophical topics in statistics (62A01) Bayesian problems; characterization of Bayes procedures (62C10) Minimax procedures in statistical decision theory (62C20)

Recommendations

• Revised evidence for statistical standards
• Revised standards for statistical evidence
• Adaptive revised standards for statistical evidence
• Rejoinder: ``Objections to Bayesian statistics
• Rejoinder on “A selective review of statistical methods using calibration information from similar studies”
• Revisiting the likelihoodist evidential account [Comment on: ``A likelihood paradigm for clinical trials]
• Corrigendum to: ``Rejection odds and rejection ratios: a proposal for statistical practice in testing hypotheses
• Rejoinder to: On methods controlling the false discovery rate

Cites work

• Adaptive revised standards for statistical evidence
• Revised evidence for statistical standards
• Revised standards for statistical evidence
• Uniformly most powerful Bayesian tests

Cited in

(4)

• Revised evidence for statistical standards
• The World of Research Has Gone Berserk: Modeling the Consequences of Requiring “Greater Statistical Stringency” for Scientific Publication
• Will the ASA's Efforts to Improve Statistical Practice be Successful? Some Evidence to the Contrary
• Revised standards for statistical evidence

This page was built for publication: Reply to Gelman, Gaudart, Pericchi: More reasons to revise standards for statistical evidence

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2962225)