The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The reign of the p -value is over: what alternative analyses could we employ to fill the power vacuum?
Open accessAbstract
The p -value has long been the figurehead of statistical analysis in biology, but its position is under threat. p is now widely recognized as providing quite limited information about our data, and as being easily misinterpreted. Many biologists are aware of p 's frailties, but less clear about how they might change the way they analyse their data in response. This article highlights and summarizes four broad statistical approaches that augment or replace the p -value, and that are relatively straightforward to apply. First, you can augment your p -value with information about how confident you are in it, how likely it is that you will get a similar p -value in a replicate study, or the probability that a statistically significant finding is in fact a false positive. Second, you can enhance the information provided by frequentist statistics with a focus on effect sizes and a quantified confidence that those effect sizes are accurate. Third, you can augment or substitute p -values with the Bayes factor to inform on the relative levels of evidence for the null and alternative hypotheses; this approach is particularly appropriate for studies where you wish to keep collecting data until clear evidence for or against your hypothesis has accrued. Finally, specifically where you are using multiple variables to predict an outcome through model building, Akaike information criteria can take the place of the p -value, providing quantified information on what model is best. Hopefully, this quick-and-easy guide to some simple yet powerful statistical options will support biologists in adopting new approaches where they feel that the p -value alone is not doing their data justice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
The ASA Statement on p -Values: Context, Process, and Purpose
Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 · Cited by 6,306
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.
Hutchison, T. W., & Popper, K. R. (1964) · Economica · doi:10.2307/2551371 · Cited by 4,197
Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R., & Huyvaert, K. P. (2011) · Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1007/s00265-010-1029-6 · Cited by 4,104
Cohen, J. (1994) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.12.997 · Cited by 4,003
Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists
Nakagawa, S., & Cuthill, I. C. (2007) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2007.00027.x · Cited by 3,835
The New Statistics: Why and How
Cumming, G. (2014) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797613504966 · Cited by 3,200
Scientists rise up against statistical significance
Amrhein, V., Greenland, S., & McShane, B. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9 · Cited by 2,983
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611430953 · Cited by 2,239
Understanding predictive information criteria for Bayesian models
Gelman, A., Hwang, J., & Vehtari, A. (2014) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1007/s11222-013-9416-2 · Cited by 2,104
Cited by
Indices of Effect Existence and Significance in the Bayesian Framework
Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Chen, S. H. A., & Lüdecke, D. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02767 · Cited by 983
Big-Data Science in Porous Materials: Materials Genomics and Machine Learning
Jablonka, K. M., Ongari, D., Moosavi, S. M., & Smit, B. (2020) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00004 · Cited by 599
Pabst, A., Proksch, S., Médé, B., Comstock, D. C., Ross, J. M., & Balasubramaniam, R. (2022) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104587 · Cited by 68
Loss, C. M., Melleu, F. F., Domingues, K., Lino-de-Oliveira, C., & Viola, G. G. (2021) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2021.763428 · Cited by 44
Finney, C. A., Delerue, F., Gold, W. A., Brown, D. A., & Shvetcov, A. (2023) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2022.12.018 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Halsey, L. G.
- Venue
- Biology Letters
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2019-05-22
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 20190174
- ISSN
- 1744-9561 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-957X
- OpenAlex
- W2945098413
- Cited by
- 357
- References
- 58
- FWCI
- 29.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The reign of the p -value is over: what alternative analyses could we employ to fill the power vacuum? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0174
- The paper
- Halsey, L. G. (2019). The reign of the p -value is over: what alternative analyses could we employ to fill the power vacuum? Biology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0174
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.