ON PRESENTING RESULTS OF STATISTICAL-ANALYSES IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS

in many biological and other scientific journals, a reader's understanding of a paper to the argument of which statistical methods and analyses are important is often impeded by confusions of terminology and ambiguities of symbols. This is not solely because statistics is a difficult subject for biologists! If an editor were to formulate and make known a code of statistical symbols, abbreviations, and technical terms that in his journal will be regarded as part of the normal language of science, an author could use these without need for explanation each time. Every author would remain free to depart from the code, provided that he defined clearly his own usages. Such a policy, supported by the journal's referees, would do much to remove the frequent necessity for a reader to guess an author's meaning. Similarly considerations apply to the use of statistical software packages, where there is an evident need for an author to declare what software (if any) he has used, in much the same way as, by established custom, he will carefully specify his experimental materials and methods where these in any respect differ from the obvious. The present paper is written to stimulate constructive debate, and in no way to dogmatize on the merits or faults of particular statistical methods. Its underlying spirit is that the author of a scientific communication has a duty to describe the making of his observations, the conduct of his computations, and the performance of his computations with a clarity that would permit their repetition by another scientist who has access to the appropriate facilities and resources.