An observational analysis of the trope "A p-value of less-than 0.05 was considered statistically significant" and other cut-and-paste statistical methods
Appropriate descriptions of statistical methods are essential for evaluating research quality and reproducibility. Despite continued efforts to improve reporting in publications, inadequate descriptions of statistical methods persist. At times, reading statistical methods sections can conjure feelings of deja vu, with content resembling cut-and-pasted or "boilerplate text" from already published work.We analyzed text extracted from published statistical methods sections to evaluate the amount of recycled text. Topic modeling was applied to analyze data from 111,731 papers published in PLOS ONE and 9,632 studies from the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). PLOS ONE topics emphasized definitions of statistical significance, software and descriptive statistics. One in three PLOS ONE papers contained at least 1 sentence that was a direct copy from another paper. 12,498 papers (11%) closely matched to the sentence "a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant". Common topics across ANZCTR studies differentiated between study designs and analysis methods, with matching text found in approximately 3% of records.Our findings quantify a serious problem affecting the reporting of statistical methods and shed light on perceptions about the communication of statistics as part of the scientific process. Results further emphasize the importance of rigorous statistical review to ensure that adequate descriptions of methods are prioritized over relatively minor details such as p-values and software when reporting research outcomes.