Poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin persist despite editorial advice.

where P < 0.05 indicates statistical significance [...] was found to be slightly smaller than that of basal cells (−181 ± 21 pA, n = 7, P27–P30) but the difference was not quite significant (P = 0.05)” (PMID 18174213) “... resting activity of A5 neurons was marginally but not significantly higher in toxin-treated rats (0.9 ± 0.2vs. 1.8 ± 0.5 Hz, P = 0.068)” (PMID 22526887) “... significantly smaller than with fura-6F alone (P = 0.009), and slightly smaller than with fura-6F and EGTA (

also in 653 other papers

significantly smaller than with fura-6F alone (P = 0.009), and slightly smaller than with fura-6F and EGTA (P = 0.08).” (PMID 18832426) “The correlation becomes only marginally significant if the single experiment with the largest effect is removed (r = 0.41, P = 0.057, n = 22).” (PMID 17916607) Implied or gross spin (i.e. spin other than interpreting p-values between 0.05 and 0.1 as trends or statistically significant) was noted incidentally in papers before (n = 10) and after (n = 9) the editorial advice was published.

also in 5,086 other papers