
doi: 10.1038/211894a0
THE proposal by Dr. Miller1 for quantitatively defined terms for various degrees of probability seems to me to be excellent. I would like to suggest, however, that the word “conclusive” for the case where P <0.001 is undesirable. The term “conclusive” suggests that no further work need be done and that no alternative interpretation is possible. In fact, an industrious person who does a few thousand experiments on the effects of a similar number of different chemicals on a particular biological process will expect to find a few of these apparently giving effects at the P <0.001 level owing to random chance even if none of the chemicals has any real effect at all.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
