In February 2014, editors of Basic and Applied Social Psychology (BASP) announced that the journal will no longer require inferential statistics procedures on an a priori basis and gave a year of grace to researchers to adapt their manuscripts at the new policies related with this procedure because “The null hypothesis significance testing procedure has been shown to be logically invalid and to provide little information about the actual likelihood of either the null or experimental hypothesis”. Then, in February 2015, this journal banned this procedure forever. One fact of importance is that Nature announced this situation in volume 519 on march 2015, saying: “A controversial statistical test has finally met its end, at least in one journal” (http://www.nature.com/news/psychology-journal-bans-p-values-1.17001).
At one year of this fact, I don’t have knowledge about that other journals have adopted this policy.
I attached the paper of David Trafimow dated of 2003 that maybe was the starter of that editorial policy, take in count that Dr. Trafimow is Editor of BASP.
It’s clear that the hypothesis tests and p-value are insuficent for report a research, and that is necessary to complement this with other measures (effect size, confidence intervals). But the questions about this situation that I want to open at discuss are:
¿Could this position be generalized for other journals based in Dr. Trafimow’s paper?
¿Which could be the position of statisticians and epidemiologists?
Thank you very much for your answers.