BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

David Colquhoun

David Colquhoun contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Applicationsphysics.data-anphysics.soc-phQuantitative Methodsstat.OT

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2019arXiv

A response to critiques of "The reproducibility of research and the misinterpretation of p-values"

I proposed (8, 1, 3) that p values should be supplemented by an estimate of the false positive risk (FPR). FPR was defined as the probability that, if you claim that there is a real effect on the basis of p value from a single unbiased experiment, that you will be mistaken and the result has occurred by chance. This is a Bayesian quantity and that means that there is an infinitude of ways to calculate it. My choice of a way to estimate FPR was, therefore, arbitrary. I maintain that it is a reasonable way, and has the advantage of being mathematically simpler than other proposals and easier to understand than other methods. This might make it more easily accepted by users. As always, not every statistician agrees. This paper is a response to a critique of my 2017 paper (1) by Arandjelovic (2)

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Innovative Science

Sir, We write as senior scientists about a problem vital to the scientific enterprise and prosperity. Nowadays, funding is a lengthy and complex business. First, universities themselves must approve all proposals for submission. Funding agencies then subject those that survive to peer review, a process by which a few researchers, usually acting anonymously, assess a proposal's chances that it will achieve its goals, is the best value for money, is relevant to a national priority and will impact on a socio-economic problem. Only 25% of proposals received by the funding agencies are funded. These protracted processes force researchers to exploit existing knowledge, severely discourage open-ended studies and are hugely time-consuming. They are also new: before 1970, few researchers wrote proposals. Now they are virtually mandatory.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of P values

The following proposition is justified from several different points of view. If you use P = 0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30 percent of the time. If, as is often the case, experiments are under-powered, you will be wrong most of the time. It is concluded that if you wish to keep your false discovery rate below 5 percent, you need to use a 3-sigma rule, or to insist on P value below 0.001. And never use the word "significant".

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access