The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Statistical Methods for Research Workers.
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
Cited by
Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 · Cited by 10,328
cocor: A Comprehensive Solution for the Statistical Comparison of Correlations
Diedenhofen, B., & Musch, J. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121945 · Cited by 1,919
Practical significance: a concept whose time has come
Kirk, R. E. (1996) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164496056005002 · Cited by 1,778
Sample Size Requirements for Estimating Pearson, Kendall and Spearman Correlations
Bonett, D. G., & Wright, T. A. (2000) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02294183 · Cited by 1,095
Pleiotropy in complex traits: challenges and strategies
Solovieff, N., Cotsapas, C., Lee, P. H., Purcell, S. M., & Smoller, J. W. (2013) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3461 · Cited by 1,085
Metadata
- Authors
- I., L., & Fisher, R. A.
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal Statistical Society
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1926-01
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 144
- ISSN
- 0952-8385 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4300944962
- Cited by
- 2,128
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 41.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Statistical Methods for Research Workers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2341488
- The paper
- I., L., & Fisher, R. A. (1926). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. https://doi.org/10.2307/2341488
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.
