Cited by 239Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyAcademic Writing and Publishing

Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript

Open access
Makin, Tamar R, Orban de Xivry, Jean-Jacques·2019·eLife

Abstract

Inspired by broader efforts to make the conclusions of scientific research more robust, we have compiled a list of some of the most common statistical mistakes that appear in the scientific literature. The mistakes have their origins in ineffective experimental designs, inappropriate analyses and/or flawed reasoning. We provide advice on how authors, reviewers and readers can identify and resolve these mistakes and, we hope, avoid them in the future.

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 · 10.7554/elife.48175

Cites

69 of 69 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?

  • Pseudoreplication has been addressed repeatedly in ecology, agriculture, psychology, and neuroscience and acknowledged as one of the most common statistical mistakes in scientific literature.

    “Pseudoreplication has been addressed repeatedly in ecology, agriculture, psychology, and neuroscience and acknowledged as one of the most common statistical mistakes in scientific literature4–9.”

    From A practical solution to pseudoreplication bias in single-cell studies (2021) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Abstract (page not specified) calls the paper’s ten topics common statistical mistakes, and “Inflating the units of analysis—The problem” describes the error underlying pseudoreplication: treating observations within subjects as independent experimental units. The paper does not establish that pseudoreplication has been addressed repeatedly in each of ecology, agriculture, psychology, and neuroscience. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Applying statistical inference to replicates that are not statistically independent without properly accounting for their correlation structure will inflate type 1 error rates and lead to spurious results.

    “Here we hope to address pseudoreplication in single-cell analyses by demonstrating what a large and long-standing body of statistical literature already confirms: applying statistical inference to replicates that are not statistically independent without properly accounting for their correlation structure will inflate type 1 error rates and lead to spurious results4–6,9,25–28.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Makin, T. R., & Orban de Xivry, J.-J.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Movement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Department of Movement Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Corresponding author
Makin, Tamar R
Venue
eLife
Published
2019-10-09
Volume
8
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2979345840
Cited by
238
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 2
FWCI
17.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (215575/Z/19/Z)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
statistical errors, research misconduct, manuscript review, experimental design flaws, research robustness, scientific writing
MeSH terms
Humans, Manuscripts, Medical as Topic, Statistics as Topic

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