Author Archives: Roger Peng

Here's a little thought experiment for your weekend pleasure. Consider the following: Joe Scientist decides to conduct a study (call it Study A) to test the hypothesis that a parameter D > 0 vs. the null hypothesis that D = 0. He … Continue reading →

Nature has jumped on to the reproducibility bandwagon and has announced a new approach to improving reproducibility of submitted papers. The new effort is focused primarily and methodology, including statistics, and in making sure that it is clear what an … Continue reading →

One element about the entire discussion about reproducible research that I haven't seen talked about very much is the potential for the lack of reciprocity. I think even if scientists were not concerned about the possibility of getting scooped by … Continue reading →

Interview with Roger Peng from YCELP on Vimeo. A few weeks ago I sat down with Angel Hsu of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy to talk about some of their work on air pollution indicators. (Note: I … Continue reading →

There's an interesting parallel between the Nevins-Potti debacle (a true debacle, in my mind) and the recent Reinhart-Rogoff kerfuffle. Both were exposed via some essentially small detail that had nothing to do with the real problem. In the case of … Continue reading →

Jeff and I talk about the recent Reinhart-Rogoff reproducibility kerfuffle and how it turns out that data analysis is really hard no matter how big the dataset.

I'm seeing lots of traffic on a big-time economics article by that failed to reproduce and here are my quick thoughts. You can read a pretty good summary here by Mike Konczal. Quick background: Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff wrote … Continue reading →