Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In an effort to improve the quality of statistics in the clinical urology literature, statisticians at European Urology, The Journal of Urology, Urology and BJU International came together to develop a set of guidelines to address common errors of statistical analysis, reporting, and interpretation. Authors should 'break any of the guidelines if it makes scientific sense to do so', but would need to provide a clear justification. Adoption of the guidelines will in our view not only increase the quality of published papers in our journals but improve statistical knowledge in our field in general.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Assel et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: