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/