This is going to be a quick one cause i need to catch a bus in 10 minutes.
A nice paper came out in PNAS on how messed up the p-value cutoff of 5% is. Nature (the journal, not the other nature) decided to report on it here:
Somewhere in the middle of that you will find this little gem:
"he found that a P value of 0.05 or less — commonly considered evidence in support of a hypothesis in fields such as social science, in which non-reproducibility has become a serious issue — corresponds to Bayes factors of between 3 and 5, which are considered weak evidence to support a finding."
Now, does that sounds weird to anyone?
Nature, that's a dick move! Pretending this is mainly a problem in "social science" is silly. The amount of money bio-medical research wastes because of building on shitty statistics is staggering (obviously, i don't know the number). And you (again, nature) as a publisher of some of that drivel should be highlighting that, not pretending it's not a problem.