| Title |
Error in statistical tests of error in statistical tests
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-6-45 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Monwhea Jeng |
| Abstract |
A recent paper found that terminal digits of statistical values in Nature deviated significantly from an equiprobable distribution, indicating errors or inconsistencies in rounding. This finding, as well as the discovery that a large percentage of p values were inconsistent with reported test statistics, led to a great deal of concern in the popular press and scientific community. The findings ultimately led to new guidelines for all Nature Research Journals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 38% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 8% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Israel | 1 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 16 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 8 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 2 | 4% |
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Israel | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Uzbekistan | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Philippines | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 76% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 18% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 7 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 15% |
| Psychology | 4 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 27% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 September 2019.
All research outputs
#2,230,169
of 25,225,928 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#302
of 2,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,477
of 81,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,225,928 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 81,612 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.