Reply to Gelman, Gaudart, Pericchi: More reasons to revise standards for statistical evidence

DOI10.1073/pnas.1400338111zbMath1357.62024OpenAlexW2012538192WikidataQ42576982 ScholiaQ42576982MaRDI QIDQ2962225

Valen E. Johnson

Publication date: 16 February 2017

Published in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400338111

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Bayesian problems; characterization of Bayes procedures (62C10) Minimax procedures in statistical decision theory (62C20) Foundations and philosophical topics in statistics (62A01)

Related Items (1)

The World of Research Has Gone Berserk: Modeling the Consequences of Requiring “Greater Statistical Stringency” for Scientific Publication

Cites Work

• Uniformly most powerful Bayesian tests
• Revised evidence for statistical standards
• Adaptive revised standards for statistical evidence
• Revised standards for statistical evidence

This page was built for publication: Reply to Gelman, Gaudart, Pericchi: More reasons to revise standards for statistical evidence