Cited by 8,228Statistical Methods and ApplicationsAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems: Data exploration

Open access
Zuur, Alain F., Ieno, Elena N., Elphick, Chris S.·2010·Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Abstract

1. While teaching statistics to ecologists, the lead authors of this paper have noticed common statistical problems. If a random sample of their work (including scientific papers) produced before doing these courses were selected, half would probably contain violations of the underlying assumptions of the statistical techniques employed. 2. Some violations have little impact on the results or ecological conclusions; yet others increase type I or type II errors, potentially resulting in wrong ecological conclusions. Most of these violations can be avoided by applying better data exploration. These problems are especially troublesome in applied ecology, where management and policy decisions are often at stake. 3. Here, we provide a protocol for data exploration; discuss current tools to detect outliers, heterogeneity of variance, collinearity, dependence of observations, problems with interactions, double zeros in multivariate analysis, zero inflation in generalized linear modelling, and the correct type of relationships between dependent and independent variables; and provide advice on how to address these problems when they arise. We also address misconceptions about normality, and provide advice on data transformations. 4. Data exploration avoids type I and type II errors, among other problems, thereby reducing the chance of making wrong ecological conclusions and poor recommendations. It is therefore essential for good quality management and policy based on statistical analyses.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2009.00001.x

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Collinearity among the moderators was inspected with variance inflation factor and found not to be an issue (VIF < 1.7 for all moderators; threshold = 3).

    “Collinearity among our moderators was inspected with variance inflation factor (VIF; Zuur, Ieno & Elphick, 2010) and found not to be an issue in our model (Table S6; VIF <1.7 for all moderators – threshold value = 3; Zuur et al., 2010).”

    From Acoustic indices as proxies for biodiversity: a meta‐analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Zuur, Ieno & Elphick, 2010

  • Collinearity among the moderators was inspected with variance inflation factor and found not to be an issue (VIF < 1.7 for all moderators; threshold = 3).

    “Collinearity among our moderators was inspected with variance inflation factor (VIF; Zuur, Ieno & Elphick, 2010) and found not to be an issue in our model (Table S6; VIF <1.7 for all moderators – threshold value = 3; Zuur et al., 2010).”

    From Acoustic indices as proxies for biodiversity: a meta‐analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Zuur et al., 2010

  • Collinearity between independent variables was assessed prior to analysis using variance inflation factors (VIF) and Spearman rank correlation tests.

    “Collinearity between independent variables was assessed prior to analysis using variance inflation factors (VIF) and Spearman rank correlation tests [54].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. (1998) Numerical Ecology. Second English Edition. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
  2. Sarkar, D. (2008) Lattice: Multivariate Data Visualization with R. Springer, New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., & Elphick, C. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University of Connecticut (US)
Corresponding author
Zuur, Alain F.
Venue
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-11-13
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
3-14
ISSN
2041-210X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2111684210
Cited by
8,228
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 653 · 2025: 710 · 2024: 737 · 2023: 721 · 2022: 766 · 2021: 833 · 2020: 788 · 2019: 679 · 2018: 609 · 2017: 489 · 2016: 376 · 2015: 283 · 2014: 228 · 2013: 147 · 2012: 116
FWCI
56.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Methods in Ecology and Evolution (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Statistical Methods and Models
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
exploratory data analysis, statistical assumptions, type I and type II errors, outliers, heteroscedasticity, multicollinearity, autocorrelation, interaction effects, double zeros, zero-inflated data, generalized linear models, normality, data transformation, applied ecology, statistical misconceptions

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