4

We recently received peer review on a manuscript that contained reasonable feedback but also this item:

when the p-value is larger than the alpha level chosen (here is .05), it is not necessary to report effect size.

To me it seems clear that effect sizes should be reported regardless of categorical significance/non-significance. For a start, meta-analyses would be relatively uninformative if non-significant effect sizes were not available.

I usually have a high bar for not complying with reviewer suggestions, but this seems like something we should resist. But I'm struggling to come up with a way of expressing it that won't excessively call into doubt the reviewer's understanding.

  1. What would be an ideal non-combative yet cogent response to this query?
  2. Is there a useful paper we could provide as an authoritative reference on this issue, so it doesn't come across as a battle of opinions?
kjetil b halvorsen
  • 63,378
  • 26
  • 142
  • 467
Michael MacAskill
  • 451
  • 3
  • 7
  • 2
    I agree with you. I think you should just say that regardless of the significance level chosen the actual p-value should be reported as well as any other relevant information. – Michael R. Chernick Feb 27 '18 at 02:10
  • 2
    Point the reviewer towards this: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/16218/what-is-the-difference-between-testing-of-hypothesis-and-test-of-significance/16227#16227 – Michael Lew Feb 27 '18 at 02:27

0 Answers0