Abstract
Appropriate descriptions of statistical methods are essential for evaluating research quality and reproducibility. Despite continued efforts to improve reporting in publications, inadequate descriptions of statistical methods persist. At times, reading statistical methods sections can conjure feelings of dèjá vu, with content resembling cut-and-pasted or “boilerplate text” from already published work. Instances of boilerplate text suggest a mechanistic approach to statistical analysis, where the same default methods are being used and described using standardized text. To investigate the extent of this practice, we analyzed text extracted from published statistical methods sections from PLOS ONE and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). Topic modeling was applied to analyze data from 111,731 papers published in PLOS ONE and 9,523 studies registered with the ANZCTR. PLOS ONE topics emphasized definitions of statistical significance, software and descriptive statistics. One in three PLOS ONE papers contained at least 1 sentence that was a direct copy from another paper. 12,675 papers (11%) closely matched to the sentence “a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant”. Common topics across ANZCTR studies differentiated between study designs and analysis methods, with matching text found in approximately 3% of sections. Our findings quantify a serious problem affecting the reporting of statistical methods and shed light on perceptions about the communication of statistics as part of the scientific process. Results further emphasize the importance of rigorous statistical review to ensure that adequate descriptions of methods are prioritized over relatively minor details such as p-values and software when reporting research outcomes.
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Reference51 articles.
1. Five ways to fix statistics;J Leek;Nature,2017
2. Cargo-cult statistics and scientific crisis;PB Stark;Significance,2018
3. Methodology over metrics: Current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society;B Van Calster;Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,2021
4. Waste in covid-19 research;PP Glasziou;The BMJ,2020
5. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal;L Wynants;BMJ,2020