Uh oh, this is getting kinda embarrassing.

The Garden of Forking Paths paper, by Eric Loken and myself, just appeared in American Scientist. Here’s our manuscript version (“The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no ‘fishing expedition’ or ‘p-hacking’ and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time”), and here’s the final, trimmed and edited version (“The Statistical Crisis in Science”) that came out in the magazine.

Russ Lyons read the published version and noticed the following sentence, actually the second sentence of the article:

Researchers typically express the confidence in their data in terms of p-value: the probability that a perceived result is actually the result of random variation.

How horrible! Russ correctly noted that the above statement is completely wrong, on two counts:

1. To the extent the p-value measures “confidence” at all, it would be confidence in the null hypothesis, not confidence in the data.

2. In any case, the p-value is not not not not not “the probability that a perceived result is actually the result of random variation.” The p-value is the probability of seeing something at least as extreme as the data, if the model (in statistics jargon, the “null hypothesis”) were true.

**How did this happen?**

The editors at American Scientist liked our manuscript but it was too long, also parts of it needed explaining for a nontechnical audience. So they cleaned up our article and added bits here and there. This is standard practice at magazines. It’s not just Raymond Carver and Gordon Lish.

Then they sent us the revised version and asked us to take a look. They didn’t give us much time. That too is standard with magazines. They have production schedules.

We went through the revised manuscript but not carefully enough. *Really* not carefully enough, given that we missed a glaring mistake—*two* glaring mistakes—in the very first paragraph of the article.

This is ultimately not the fault of the editors. The paper is our responsibility and it’s our fault for not checking the paper line by line. If it was worth writing and worth publishing, it was worth checking.

**P.S.** Russ also points out that the examples in our paper all are pretty silly and not of great practical importance, and he wouldn’t want readers of our article to get the impression that “the garden of forking paths” is only an issue in silly studies.

That’s a good point. The problems of nonreplication etc affect all sorts of science involving human variation. For example there is a lot of controversy about something called “stereotype threat,” a phenomenon that is important if real. For another example, these problems have arisen in studies of early childhood intervention and the effects of air pollution. I’ve mentioned all these examples in talks I’ve given on this general subject, they just didn’t happen to make it into this particular paper. I agree that our paper would’ve been stronger had we mentioned some of these unquestionably important examples.