Five Nonobvious Changes in Editorial Practice for Editors and Reviewers to Consider When Evaluating Submissions in A Post p < 0.05 Universe

The American Statistical Association's Symposium on Statistical Inference (SSI) included a session on how editorial practices should change in a universe no longer dominated by null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). The underlying assumptions were first, that NHST is problematic; and second, that editorial practices really should change. The present article is based on my talk in this session, and on these assumptions. Consistent with the spirit of the SSI, my focus is not on what reviewers and editors should not do (e.g., NHST) but rather on what they should do, with an emphasis on changes that are not obvious. The recommended changes include a wider consideration of the nature of the contribution than submitted manuscripts usually receive; a greater tolerance of ambiguity; more of an emphasis on the thinking and execution of the study, with a decreased emphasis on the findings; replacing NHST with the a priori procedure; and a call for reviewers and editors to recognize that there are many cases where the basic assumptions of inferential statistical procedures simply are not met, and that inferential statistics (even the a priori procedure) may consequently be inappropriate.