Statistics in Public Understanding of Science review: How to achieve high statistical standards?

Abstract

This article proposes a checklist to improve statistical reporting in the manuscripts submitted to Public Understanding of Science. Generally, these guidelines will allow the reviewers (and readers) to judge whether the evidence provided in the manuscript is relevant. The article ends with other suggestions for a better statistical quality of the journal.

Keywords

guidelines science communication statistics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altman

(2002) Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do? Journal of American Medical Association 287(21): 2765–2767.

Bakker

Wicherts

(2011) The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behavioral Research 43: 666–678.

Bauer

Howard

(2013) Public Understanding of Science: Compiled bibliography 1992–2011. Available at: http://pus.sagepub.com/site/misc/PUS_book_v6_AG.pdf (accessed May 2015).

Cooper

(2011) Reporting Research in Psychology: How to Meet Journal Article Reporting Standards. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.

Crettaz von Roten

de Roten

(2013) Statistics in science and in society: From a state of the art to a new research agenda. Public Understanding of Science 22(7): 768–784.

Gelman

(2015) Working through some issues. Significance 12(3): 33–35.

Glaser

(1999) The controversy of significance testing: Misconceptions and alternatives. American Journal of Critical Care 8(5): 291–296.

Ioannidis

JPA

(2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2(8): 696–701.

Merton

(1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

10.

Nelder

(1999) Statistics for the millennium: From statistics to statistical science. The Statistician 48(2): 257–269.

11.

Nuzzo

(2014) Statistical errors: p values, the gold standard of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. Nature 506: 150–152.

12.

Tal

Wansink

(2014) Blinded with science: Trivial graphs and formulas increase ad persuasiveness and belief in product efficacy. Public Understanding of Science. Epub ahead of print 15 October.DOI: 10.1177/0963662514549688.

13.

World Association for Public Opinion Research (WAPOR) (2014) ESOMAR/WAPOR guideline to opinion polls and published surveys. Available at: http://wapor.org/esomarwapor-guide-to-opinion-polls/ (accessed 1 December 2014).