Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5423/PPJ.RW.03.2022.0043

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)
Publication Information
The Plant Pathology Journal / v.38, no.3, 2022 , pp. 175-181 More about this Journal
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
pseudo-replication; P-value; standard deviation; standard error; statistical analysis;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Altman, D. G. and Bland, J. M. 2005. Standard deviations and standard errors. BMJ 331:903.   DOI
2 Bell, G. 2016. Replicates and repeats. BMC Biol. 14:28.   DOI
3 Goodman, S. N. 1999. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 1: the P value fallacy. Ann. Intern. Med. 130:995-1004.   DOI
4 Huber, W. 2019. Reporting p values. Cell Syst. 8:170-171.   DOI
5 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].
6 Resnik, D. B. and Shamoo, A. E. 2017. Reproducibility and research integrity. Account. Res. 24:116-123.   DOI
7 Kruschke, J. K. 2013. Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 142:573-603.   DOI
8 Nuzzo, R. 2014. Scientific method: statistical errors. Nature 506:150-152.   DOI
9 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.   DOI
10 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.   DOI
11 Anonymous. 2016. Reality check on reproducibility. Nature 533:437.
12 Baker, M. 2016. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533:452-454.   DOI
13 Diaba-Nuhoho, P. and Amponsah-Offeh, M. 2021. Reproducibility and research integrity: the role of scientists and institutions. BMC Res. Notes 14:451.   DOI
14 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.   DOI
15 Goodman, S. N. 2001. Of P-values and Bayes: a modest proposal. Epidemiology 12:295-297.   DOI
16 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.   DOI
17 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.   DOI