Post

Methodologists' theoretical papers: "you MUST do X or your estimates are meaningless." Methodologists' empirical papers: [does not do X]

Kristoffer Magnusson

@rpsychologist.com

Someone must've done a systematic review on whether methodologists follow their own advice?

10/3/26, 12:57 pm0 reposts9 likes

Ruben C. Arslan

@ruben.the100.ci

10 Mar

oof I have some examples. do methodologists as second authors count tho?

Kristoffer Magnusson

@rpsychologist.com

10 Mar

pretty sure the effect is even stronger the more obscure the author position is!

Dan Quintana

@dsquintana.bsky.social

10 Mar

I think I remember someone did a review on whether the people who co-authored the ‘redefine statistical significance to p < .005’ paper actually started doing this in their own work

Malte Elson

@malte.the100.ci

10 Mar

Has this ever been written up somewhere? I too recall seeing it, but can't find anything

Malte Elson

@malte.the100.ci

10 Mar

@lakens.bsky.social I recall you were in the mix, no?

Daniel Lakens

@lakens.bsky.social

10 Mar

The paper is already written: www.nature.com/articles/s41... To be fair, the p<. 005 people are really to blame for not following their advice. We are off the hook because 1) it was mainly a 'here is why not' paper, 2) we only got round to publishing how to justify alpha in practice > see next

nature.comThe vicious cycle that stalls statistical revolution - Nature Human BehaviourTwo publications have called for the redefinition of statistical significance as 0.005, or justification of the alpha. We argue that these papers expose a vicious cycle: scientists do not adopt recomm...