Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Recommendations for Describing Statistical Studies and Results in General Readership Science and Engineering Journals

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper recommends how authors of statistical studies can communicate to general audiences fully, clearly, and comfortably. The studies may use statistical methods to explore issues in science, engineering, and society or they may address issues in statistics specifically. In either case, readers without explicit statistical training should have no problem understanding the issues, the methods, or the results at a non-technical level. The arguments for those results should be clear, logical, and persuasive. This paper also provides advice for editors of general journals on selecting high quality statistical articles without the need for exceptional work or expense. Finally, readers are also advised to watch out for some common errors or misuses of statistics that can be detected without a technical statistical background.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Balz, D., & Cohen, J. (2010). 6 in 10 Americans lack faith in Obama. The Washington Post, A1, A6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, J. (2008). Stat-spotting: A field guide to identifying bogus data. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Board on Research Data and Information. N.d. Washington, DC: The National Academies. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/brdi/index.htm.

  • Box, G. E. P., Hunter, W. G., & Hunter, J. S. (1978). Statistics for experimenters: An introduction to design, data analysis, and model building. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Veaux, R. D. and Hand, D. J. (2005). How to Lie with Bad Data. Statistical Science, 20(3) 231–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, W. J. (1981). Practical experimental designs for engineers and scientists. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • EGSP Ethical guidelines for statistical practice. (1999). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/about/ethicalguidelines.cfm.

  • Feigenbaum, S. and Levy, D.M. (1996) The Technological Obsolescence of Scientific Fraud. Rationality and Society, 8(3) 261–276.

  • Freedman, D. A. (2008). Oasis or mirage? CHANCE, 21(1), 59–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardenier, J. S. (2003). Best statistical practices to promote research integrity. Professional Ethics Report, 16(1) 1–2. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/per32.htm.

  • Grambsch, P. (2008). Regression to the mean, murder rates, and shall-issue laws. The American Statistician, 62(4), 289–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooke, R. (1983). How to tell the liars from the statisticians. New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huff, D. (1954). How to lie with statistics. New York: Norton Paperback (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, P. (1986). Damned liars and expert witnesses. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(394), 268–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, S. (2009). ASA President Delivers NC State Commencement Speech. AMSTAT NEWS, 385 13. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, M. (2010). How does “some confidence” mean ‘lack of faith’? Free for All. The Washington Post, A11.

  • Rand Corp (2010). Standards for high quality research and analysis. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/standards/standards_high.html.

  • Sedransk, N., et al. (2010). Make research data public? Not always so simple: A dialogue for statisticians and science editors. Statistical Science, 25(1), 41–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tufte, E. R. (1997). Visual explanations: Images and quantities, evidence and narrative. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tufte, E. R. (2006). Beautiful evidence. Chesire, CT: Graphics Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. (1993). Sense and nonsense of statistical inference: Controversy, misuse, and subtlety. New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellford, C. F., Pepper, J. V., & Petrie, C. V. (Eds.). (2004). Firearms and violence: A critical review. Committee to improve research information and data on firearms. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John S. Gardenier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gardenier, J.S. Recommendations for Describing Statistical Studies and Results in General Readership Science and Engineering Journals. Sci Eng Ethics 18, 651–662 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9261-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9261-7

Keywords

Navigation