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.
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.
Best, J. (2008). Stat-spotting: A field guide to identifying bogus data. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
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.
De Veaux, R. D. and Hand, D. J. (2005). How to Lie with Bad Data. Statistical Science, 20(3) 231–238.
Diamond, W. J. (1981). Practical experimental designs for engineers and scientists. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.
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.
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.
Hooke, R. (1983). How to tell the liars from the statisticians. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Huff, D. (1954). How to lie with statistics. New York: Norton Paperback (1993).
Meier, P. (1986). Damned liars and expert witnesses. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(394), 268–276.
Morton, S. (2009). ASA President Delivers NC State Commencement Speech. AMSTAT NEWS, 385 13. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
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.
Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Tufte, E. R. (1997). Visual explanations: Images and quantities, evidence and narrative. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Tufte, E. R. (2006). Beautiful evidence. Chesire, CT: Graphics Press.
Wang, C. (1993). Sense and nonsense of statistical inference: Controversy, misuse, and subtlety. New York: Marcel Dekker.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9261-7