Agree. I have never understood why p=0.05 is a holy threshold. People (and journals) toss out research if they get p=0.06 but they think they are their way to a Nobel prize with p=0.04. Madness.
Fisher, The arrangement of field experiments, Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture (1926):
If one in twenty does not seem high enough odds, we may, if we prefer it, draw the line at one in fifty (the 2 per cent. point), or one in a hundred (the 1 per cent. point). Personally, the writer prefers to set a low standard of significance at the 5 per cent. point, and ignore entirely all results which fail to reach this level. A scientific fact should be regarded as experimentally established only if a properly designed experiment rarely fails to give this level of significance.
As a side note, I wonder how many would get their PhD degree if the requirement was to publish 3-4 papers (2 single author and 1-2 co-author) were the main result (where it’s applicable) needed to have p<0.01? Perhaps the paper publishing frenzy would slow down a little bit if the monograph came into fashion again?
Agree. I have never understood why p=0.05 is a holy threshold. People (and journals) toss out research if they get p=0.06 but they think they are their way to a Nobel prize with p=0.04. Madness.
Fisher, The arrangement of field experiments, Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture (1926):
This is why. Relevant smbc.
yeah, that comic summarize it all!
As a side note, I wonder how many would get their PhD degree if the requirement was to publish 3-4 papers (2 single author and 1-2 co-author) were the main result (where it’s applicable) needed to have p<0.01? Perhaps the paper publishing frenzy would slow down a little bit if the monograph came into fashion again?