[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
st: RE: RE: Significance stars
Thanks for your testimony. Naturally, real life
is complicated and short. I too sometimes use
P < 0.05 as an indicator of what's worth taking
seriously, although always in combination with
other criteria. And I too sometimes compromise
reluctantly with reviewers for the sake of getting
a paper published.
All I can say on the last is that the Stata Journal
disapproves very mightily!
What I find interesting is the apparent lack of
_any_ good reason for starring. The social facts that
many people do it and that a few people even insist on
it are not in question. It's the rationale I seek.
Anderson, Bradley J
> Interesting history regarding the use of * and ** and I
> strongly agree with your comments. Unfortunately, many
> editors and reviewers regard a certain level of Type I error
> (usually < .05) as a sacred criterion that defines what's
> important, and what's not important. And what gets published
> and what does not get published. Indeed, I've had editors
> who have required us to remove p-values and confidence
> intervals in favor of * and **.
* For searches and help try: