Three more steps toward better science.

Science has striven to do better since its inception and has given us good philosophies, methodologies and statistical tools that, in their own way, do reasonably well for purpose. Unfortunately, progress has also been marred by historical clashes among perspectives, typically between frequentists and Bayesians, leading to troubles such as the current reproducibility crises. Here I wish to propose that science could do better with more resilient structures, more useful methodological tutorials, and clearer signaling regarding how much we can trust what it produces.

Manipulating the Alpha Level Cannot Cure Significance Testing.

We argue that making accept/reject decisions on scientific hypotheses, including a recent call for changing the canonical alpha level from = 0.05 to = 0.005, is deleterious for the finding of new discoveries and the progress of science.

Retract < 0.005 and propose using JASP, instead.

Seeking to address the lack of research reproducibility in science, including psychology and the life sciences, a pragmatic solution has been raised recently:  to use a stricter < 0.005 standard for statistical significance when claiming evidence of new discoveries. Notwithstanding its potential impact, the proposal has motivated a large mass of authors to dispute it from different philosophical and methodological angles.

Fisher, Neyman-Pearson or NHST? A tutorial for teaching data testing.

Despite frequent calls for the overhaul of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), this controversial procedure remains ubiquitous in behavioral, social and biomedical teaching and research. Little change seems possible once the procedure becomes well ingrained in the minds and current practice of researchers; thus, the optimal opportunity for such change is at the time the procedure is taught, be this at undergraduate or at postgraduate levels. This paper presents a tutorial for the teaching of data testing procedures, often referred to as hypothesis testing theories.

Health benefits of deer and elk velvet antler supplements: a systematic review of randomised controlled studies.

Aims: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence from RCTs of velvet antler supplements for any condition, using the QUOROM statement as a guiding framework.

Methods: Four electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Web of Science and Academic search premier, via the bibliographical platform, Endnote) and two review articles were searched for all randomised clinical trials of velvet antler supplements. Retrieved trials were evaluated according to standardised criteria.