Do t-Statistic Hurdles Need to be Raised?

Andrew Y. Chen

Papers from arXiv.org

Abstract: Many scholars have called for raising statistical hurdles to guard against false discoveries in academic publications. I show these calls may be difficult to justify empirically. Published data exhibit bias: results that fail to meet existing hurdles are often unobserved. These unobserved results must be extrapolated, which can lead to weak identification of revised hurdles. In contrast, statistics that can target only published findings (e.g. empirical Bayes shrinkage and the FDR) can be strongly identified, as data on published findings is plentiful. I demonstrate these results theoretically and in an empirical analysis of the cross-sectional return predictability literature.

Date: 2022-04, Revised 2024-04
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ecm
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.10275 Latest version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:2204.10275

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators (help@arxiv.org).