Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper discusses four areas where, in the author's view, statistical methods are misused in reporting results of hydro-climatological research. They are: (i) the use of the same data set both to suggest a hypothesis (commonly of trend over time) and to test it; (ii) failure to use an appropriate significance level for tests in which a number of hypotheses are tested, even when the data sets used are mutually uncorrelated; (iii) failure to account for spatial correlations between variables, whether these are explanatory or response variables; and (iv) exaggerated importance given to statistical tests of significance, in particular to the 5% and 1% significance levels. Citation Clarke, R. T. (2010) On the (mis)use of statistical methods in hydro-climatological research. Hydrol. Sci. J. 55(2), 139–144.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robin T. Clarke (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: