In this episode Dan and James discuss a forthcoming paper that's causing a bit of a stir by proposing that biobehavioral scientists should use a 0.005 p-value statistical significance threshold instead of 0.05.
Stuff they cover:
- A summary of the paper and how they decided on 0.005.
- Whether raising the threshold the best way to improve reproducibility?
- Is 0.005 too stringent?
- Would this new threshold unfairly favour “super” labs?
- If we keep shifting the number does any threshold really matter?
- Dan and James’ first impressions of the paper
- A crash course on Mediterranean taxation systems
- What would a 0.005 threshold practically mean for researchers?
Links
The paper https://osf.io/mky9j/
ENIGMA consortium http://enigma.ini.usc.edu
Music credits: Lee Rosevere freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/