<story><title>50% of neuroscience papers suffer from a major statistical error.</title><url>http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/what-if-academics-were-as-dumb-as-quacks-with-statistics/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>polyfractal</author><text>In academic biology, statistics is routinely considered an afterthought.  In the eyes of many labs/PIs, their results are already real.  You just have to do those damn statistical tests so the editor will get off your back.&lt;p&gt;Most biologists don&apos;t understand statistics either.  To the majority, the unpaired T-Test is the only test that is needed.  Ever.  Doesn&apos;t matter if you have one or two tails, paired or unpaired trials, normally distributed population or skewed.  Most biologists don&apos;t take proper statistics classes and most just don&apos;t care.  I doubt most biologists would even be able to name alternative statistical tests.</text></comment>
<story><title>50% of neuroscience papers suffer from a major statistical error.</title><url>http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/what-if-academics-were-as-dumb-as-quacks-with-statistics/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>gizmo</author><text>Not to nitpick, but the headline &quot;50% of neuroscience papers suffer from a major statistical error.&quot; is false. Out of a sample of 513 papers 78 contained this specific mistake.</text></comment>