Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Many controversies in statistics are due primarily or solely to poor quality control in journals, bad statistical textbooks, bad teaching, unclear writing, and lack of knowledge of the historical literature. One way to improve the practice of statistics and resolve these issues is to do what initiators of the 2016 ASA statement did: take one issue at a time, have extensive discussions about the issue among statisticians of diverse backgrounds and perspectives and eventually develop and publish a broadly supported consensus on that issue. Upon completion of this task, we then move on to deal with another core issue in the same way. We propose as the next project a process that might lead quickly to a strong consensus that the term “statistically significant” and all its cognates and symbolic adjuncts be disallowed in the scientific literature except where focus is on the history of statistics and its philosophies and methodologies. Calculation and presentation of accurate p-values will often remain highly desirable though not obligatory. Supplementary materials for this article are available online in the form of an appendix listing the names and institutions of 48 other statisticians and scientists who endorse the principal propositions put forward here.
Hurlbert et al. (Wed,) studied this question.