|
Abstract
|
Mary Schmich's (1997) Chicago Tribune column provides advice about how to live a happier life and avoid common frustrations. These words were later spoken by Lee Perry in Baz Luhrmann's 1999 song 'Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen)' also known as 'The Sunscreen Song' (Schmich et al., 1997). Much of Schmich's advice is sound. Especially about wearing sunscreen!! However, when it comes to a journal's authorship guidelines 'Read the instructions even if you don't follow them' is NOT advice you should adhere to.
A fundamental element of research is advancing knowledge. This includes developing and testing hypotheses. It is expected that Journal of Child Health Care (JCHC) published papers will report in detail their methods and assumptions of analysis. Papers should also discuss their findings in the context of available literature with some author critique. Then JCHC's audience can use their expertise to critically interpret implications of results and any associated uncertainties. To aid with this there is a requirement for consistent reporting to an audience who is primarily comprised of our expert peers.
Reporting of statistical methodology, including design, analysis, and presentation of results obtained varies considerably. This can make reading of manuscripts and interpretation of results incredibly difficult for JCHC's readers. Particularly for those who are not statistically minded. Hence, there is a need to present all statistics in an understandable and readable format.
Statistical methods employ extensively accepted tools for analysing data and drawing appropriate conclusions (Charan and Saxena, 2012). However, inappropriate statistical methods may lead to unsuitable or false conclusions (Shann, 1996). An example is when analysing data measured on a continuous scale, applying a parametric test, such as the ubiquitous Students t-test, might produce a false result if the data is not normally distributed (Charan and Saxena, 2012). Similarly, over reporting of probability values, rather than 95% Confidence Intervals, can lead to misleading results (Harrington et al., 2019).
Lack of relevant statistical information can lead to review process delays. If information is unclear, or missing, there is a need to request clarifications. This may require...
Language: en |