The Plant Pathology Journal

The Korean Society of Plant Pathology (한국식물병리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Brief Guide to Statistical Analysis and Presentation for the Plant Pathology Journal

  • Jeon, Junhyun (Department of Biotechnology, College of Life and Applied Sciences, Yeungnam University)
  • Received : 2022.03.28
  • Accepted : 2022.04.26
  • Published : 2022.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Statistical analysis of data is an integral part of research projects in all scientific disciplines including the plant pathology. Appropriate design, application and interpretation of statistical analysis are also, therefore, at the center of publishing and properly evaluating studies in plant pathology. A survey of research works published in the Plant Pathology Journal, however, cast doubt on high standard of statistical analysis required for scientific rigor and reproducibility in the journal. Here I first describe, based on the survey of published works, what mistakes are commonly made and what components are often lacking during statistical analysis and interpretation of its results. Next, I provide possible remedies and suggestions to help guide researchers in preparing manuscript and reviewers in evaluating manuscripts submitted to the Plant Pathology Journal. This is not aiming at delineating technical and practical details of particular statistical methods or approaches.

Keywords

References

  1. Altman, D. G. and Bland, J. M. 2005. Standard deviations and standard errors. BMJ 331:903. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7521.903
  2. Anonymous. 2016. Reality check on reproducibility. Nature 533:437.
  3. Baker, M. 2016. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533:452-454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a
  4. Bell, G. 2016. Replicates and repeats. BMC Biol. 14:28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-016-0254-5
  5. Diaba-Nuhoho, P. and Amponsah-Offeh, M. 2021. Reproducibility and research integrity: the role of scientists and institutions. BMC Res. Notes 14:451. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-021-05875-3
  6. Fanelli, D. 2018. Opinion: is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 115:2628-2631. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708272114
  7. Goodman, S. N. 1999. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 1: the P value fallacy. Ann. Intern. Med. 130:995-1004. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-130-12-199906150-00008
  8. Goodman, S. N. 2001. Of P-values and Bayes: a modest proposal. Epidemiology 12:295-297. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-200105000-00006
  9. Ho, J., Tumkaya, T., Aryal, S., Choi, H. and Claridge-Chang, A. 2019. Moving beyond P values: data analysis with estimation graphics. Nat. Methods 16:565-566. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0470-3
  10. Huber, W. 2019. Reporting p values. Cell Syst. 8:170-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2019.03.001
  11. Kass, R. E., Caffo, B. S., Davidian, M., Meng, X.-L., Yu, B. and Reid, N. 2016. Ten simple rules for effective statistical practice. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12:e1004961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004961
  12. Kruschke, J. K. 2013. Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 142:573-603. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029146
  13. Lazic, S. E. 2019. Genuine replication and pseudoreplication: what's the difference? URL https://blogs.bmj.com/openscience/2019/09/16/genuine-replication-and-pseudoreplication-whats-the-difference/ [10 January 2022].
  14. Madden, L. V., Shah, D. A. and Esker, P. D. 2015. Does the P value have a future in plant pathology? Phytopathology 105:1400-1407. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-07-15-0165-LE
  15. Nuzzo, R. 2014. Scientific method: statistical errors. Nature 506:150-152. https://doi.org/10.1038/506150a
  16. Resnik, D. B. and Shamoo, A. E. 2017. Reproducibility and research integrity. Account. Res. 24:116-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1257387
  17. Vaux, D. L., Fidler, F. and Cumming, G. 2012. Replicates and repeats--what is the difference and is it significant? A brief discussion of statistics and experimental design. EMBO Rep. 13:291-296. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2012.36