« Labour terms of trade and real wages | Main | Mercantilism at the Globe and Mail »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

An interesting study would investigate the dodginess of published results with the proximity of the date for renewal of the researcher's funding.

Is it possible that articles without statistically significant results tend to be rejected, whereas those with significant results do get published?

Great timing for this post -- our graduate methods class just read Cohen's 'The World Is Round (p<.05)' and had a great discussion about the problem of these useful-but-artificial distinctions between significance and insignificance. Thanks for the links.

Here's the ref. for anyone interested:
Cohen, J. (1994). "The world is round (p < .05)," American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad