We propose to change the default P-value threshold for statistical significance from 0.05 to 0.005 for claims of new discoveries. T he lack of reproducibility of scientific studies has caused growing concern over the credibility of claims of new discoveries based on 'statistically significant' findings. There has been much progress toward documenting and addressing several causes of this lack of reproducibility (for example, multiple testing, P-hacking, publication bias and under-powered studies). However, we believe that a leading cause of non-reproducibility has not yet been adequately addressed: statistical standards of evidence for claiming new discoveries in many fields of science are simply too low. Associating statistically significant findings with P < 0.05 results in a high rate of false positives even in the absence of other experimental, procedural and reporting problems.For fields where the threshold for defining statistical significance for new discoveries is P < 0.05, we propose a change to P < 0.005. This simple step would immediately improve the reproducibility of scientific research in many fields. Results that would currently be called significant but do not meet the new threshold should instead be called suggestive. While statisticians have known the relative weakness of using P ≈ 0.05 as a threshold for discovery and the proposal to lower it to 0.005 is not new 1,2 , a critical mass of researchers now endorse this change.We restrict our recommendation to claims of discovery of new effects. We do not address the appropriate threshold for confirmatory or contradictory replications of existing claims. We also do not advocate changes to discovery thresholds in fields that have already adopted more stringent standards (for example, genomics and high-energy physics research; see the 'Potential objections' section below).We also restrict our recommendation to studies that conduct null hypothesis significance tests. We have diverse views about how best to improve reproducibility, and many of us believe that other ways of summarizing the data, such as Bayes factors or other posterior summaries based on clearly articulated model assumptions, are preferable to P values. However, changing the P value threshold is simple, aligns with the training undertaken by many researchers, and might quickly achieve broad acceptance.

No abstract

What is model selection? What are the goals of model selection? What are the methods of model selection and how do they work? Which methods perform better than others and in what circumstances? These questions rest on a number of key concepts in a relatively underdeveloped field. The aim of this paper is to explain some background concepts, to highlight some of the results in this special issue, and to add my own. The standard methods of model selection include classical hypothesis testing, maximum likelihood, Bayes method, minimum description length, cross-validation, and Akaike's information criterion. They all provide an implementation of Occam's razor, in which parsimony or simplicity is balanced against goodness-of-fit. These methods primarily take account of the sampling errors in parameter estimation, although their relative success at this task depends on the circumstances. However, the aim of model selection should also include the ability of a model to generalize to predictions in a different domain. Errors of extrapolation, or generalization, are different from errors of parameter estimation. So, it seems that simplicity and parsimony may be an additional factor in managing these errors, in which case the standard methods of model selection are incomplete implementations of Occam's razor. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.

No abstract

No abstract