**** OFFTOPIC **** These links were sent to me by a friend and are kind of a followup to Sarah Goslee's recent off topic post on the Rogoff Excel spreadsheet goof, which I appreciated, that I hope will be of interest to this list's readers. I apologize if I have taken too much license. I will also crosspost it to stackexchange, where it is more appropriate. **Please reply privately if you wish to reply to me.****
Note: The Button commentary is a good quick summary if you don't want to go through the NATURE paper. Cheers, Bert Button, Ioannidis et al, “Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience” http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nrn3475.html A commentary by his co-author, Kate Button: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/sifting-the-evidence/2013/apr/10/unreliable-neuroscience-power-matters The headline from this coverage is more blunt: “Most brain science papers are neurotrash” http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/12/brain_science_low_power_junk/ -- Bert Gunter Genentech Nonclinical Biostatistics ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
