PhilStat virtual Forum: Mark Burgman (Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London; Editor-in-Chief, Conservation Biology): “How should applied science journal editors deal with statistical controversies?“
PhilStat Forum monthly virtual meeting: March 25, TIME: 15:00-16:45 (London); 11:00-12:45 (New York-EDT, note US time change) presents:
Mark Burgman (Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London & Editor-in-Chief, Conservation Biology) “How should applied science journal editors deal with statistical controversies?“
ABSTRACT: Applied sciences come with different focuses. In environmental science, as in epidemiology, the framing and context of problems is often in crises. Decisions are imminent, data and understanding are incomplete, and ramifications of decisions are substantial. This context makes the implications of inferences from data especially poignant. It also makes the claims made by fervent and dedicated authors especially challenging. The full gamut of potential statistical foibles and psychological frailties are on display. In this presentation, I will outline and summarise the kinds of errors of reasoning that are especially prevalent in ecology and conservation biology. I will outline how these things appear to be changing, providing some recent examples. Finally, I will describe some implications of alternative editorial policies.
Some questions:
Would it be a good thing to dispense with p-values, either through encouragement or through strict editorial policy?
Would it be a good thing to insist on confidence intervals?
Should editors of journals in a broad discipline, band together and post common editorial policies for statistical inference?
Should all papers be reviewed by a professional statistician?
If so, which kind?
If you would like to constructively engage with us, please see the instructions for joining on the meeting post.
3/25/2021
