IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v115y2018i1d10.1007_s11192-018-2656-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is there an intrinsic logical error in null hypothesis significance tests? Commentary on: “Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: the basis for widespread confusion and numerous misinterpretations”

Author

Listed:
  • Jinshan Wu

    (Beijing Normal University)

Abstract

In Schneider (Scientometrics 102:411–432, 2015), the author argues that there is an intrinsic logical problem in null hypothesis significance test and thus urges to use it carefully. We agree with the conclusion but not with the main argument, although there are other arguments that we agree with. In this letter to editor, we want to clarify further this issue of validity and applicability of null hypothesis significance test.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinshan Wu, 2018. "Is there an intrinsic logical error in null hypothesis significance tests? Commentary on: “Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: the basis for widespread confusion an," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 621-625, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:115:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2656-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2656-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2656-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-018-2656-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wolfgang Glänzel & Henk F. Moed, 2013. "Opinion paper: thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 381-394, July.
    2. Jesper W. Schneider, 2015. "Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: the basis for widespread confusion and numerous misinterpretations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 411-432, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jesper W. Schneider, 2018. "NHST is still logically flawed," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 627-635, April.
    2. Alexandre Galvão Patriota, 2018. "Is NHST logically flawed? Commentary on: “NHST is still logically flawed”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2189-2191, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wildgaard, Lorna, 2016. "A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1055-1078.
    2. Csató, László, 2019. "Journal ranking should depend on the level of aggregation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    3. Zhiqi Wang & Ronald Rousseau, 2021. "COVID-19, the Yule-Simpson paradox and research evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3501-3511, April.
    4. Yurij L. Katchanov & Yulia V. Markova, 2017. "The “space of physics journals”: topological structure and the Journal Impact Factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 313-333, October.
    5. Laura Vana & Ronald Hochreiter & Kurt Hornik, 2016. "Computing a journal meta-ranking using paired comparisons and adaptive lasso estimators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 229-251, January.
    6. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2014. "An axiomatic approach to bibliometric rankings and indices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 449-477.
    7. Alexandre Galvão Patriota, 2018. "Is NHST logically flawed? Commentary on: “NHST is still logically flawed”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2189-2191, September.
    8. Bornmann, Lutz & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2017. "Skewness of citation impact data and covariates of citation distributions: A large-scale empirical analysis based on Web of Science data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 164-175.
    9. Lawrence Smolinsky & Aaron Lercher & Andrew McDaniel, 2015. "Testing theories of preferential attachment in random networks of citations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 2132-2145, October.
    10. Zhesi Shen & Liying Yang & Zengru Di & Jinshan Wu, 2019. "Large enough sample size to rank two groups of data reliably according to their means," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 653-671, February.
    11. Marko Hofmann & Silja Meyer-Nieberg, 2018. "Time to dispense with the p-value in OR?," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(1), pages 193-214, March.
    12. Gordon Rogers & Martin Szomszor & Jonathan Adams, 2020. "Sample size in bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 777-794, October.
    13. Cristian Colliander & Per Ahlgren, 2019. "Comparison of publication-level approaches to ex-post citation normalization," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 283-300, July.
    14. Beerkens, Maarja, 2013. "Facts and fads in academic research management: The effect of management practices on research productivity in Australia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1679-1693.
    15. Antonoyiannakis, Manolis, 2018. "Impact Factors and the Central Limit Theorem: Why citation averages are scale dependent," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1072-1088.
    16. Günter Krampen & Peter Weiland & Jürgen Wiesenhütter, 2015. "Citation success of different publication types: a case study on all references in psychology publications from the German-speaking countries (D–A–CH–L–L) in 2009, 2010, and 2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 827-840, September.
    17. Donner, Paul & Aman, Valeria, 2015. "Quantilbasierte Indikatoren für Impact und Publikationsstrategie: Ergebnisse für Deutschland in allen Fachdisziplinen in den Jahren 2000 bis 2011," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 8-2015, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    18. Boris Forthmann & Philipp Doebler, 2021. "Reliability of researcher capacity estimates and count data dispersion: a comparison of Poisson, negative binomial, and Conway-Maxwell-Poisson models," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3337-3354, April.
    19. Copiello, Sergio, 2019. "Peer and neighborhood effects: Citation analysis using a spatial autoregressive model and pseudo-spatial data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 238-254.
    20. Gangan Prathap, 2014. "Single parameter indices and bibliometric outliers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1781-1787, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Null hypothesis significance tests;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:115:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2656-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.