Abstract:The author wishes to thank the volunteers who participated in the study. Research ethics: Not applicable. Informed consent: Not applicable. Author contributions: The author has accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission. Use of Large Language Models, AI and Machine Learning Tools: None declared. conflict of interest: The author states no conflict of interest. Research funding: None declared. Data availability: Not applicable. 1. Milner, AD, Goodale, MA. The visual brain in action , 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2006. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524724.001.0001Search in Google Scholar 2. Eberhard, K. The effects of visualization on judgement and decision-making: a systematic literature review. Manag Rev Q 2023;73:167–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00235-8. Search in Google Scholar 3. Franconeri, SL, Padilla, LM, Shah, P, Zacks, JM, Hullman, J. The science of visual data communication: what works. Psychol Sci Publ Interest 2021;22:110–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006211051956. Search in Google Scholar PubMed 4. European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine . EFLM Biological variation database. Available from: https://biologicalvariation.eu/ [Accessed 3 Jul 2024]. Search in Google Scholar 5. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Universities Australia . National statement on ethical conduct in human research . Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council; 2023. Search in Google Scholar 6. Farrell, C. A shiny app to assess the influence of data visualisation on laboratorians' acceptance of method comparison studies . Geneva, Switzerland: Zenodo; 2024. Search in Google Scholar 7. Cole, TJ, Altman, DG. Statistics notes: what is percentage difference? BMJ 2017;358:j3663. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3663. Search in Google Scholar PubMed 8. Cole, TJ, Altman, DG. Statistics notes: percentage differences, symmetry, and natural logarithms. BMJ 2017;358:j3683. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3683. Search in Google Scholar PubMed © 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Fraud detection with statistics: A comment on "Evidential Value in ANOVA-Regression Results in Scientific Integrity Studies" (Klaassen, 2015)

Evidential Value in ANOVA-Regression Results in Scientific Integrity Studies

Evidential Value in ANOVA Results in Favor of Fabrication

Statistical Detection of Potentially Fabricated Data

Errors and secret data in the Italian research assessment exercise. A comment to a reply

On the Proper Use of Statistical Analyses; a Comment on "Evaluation of Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey" by Douglas et al

Potential COVID-19 test fraud detection: Findings from a pilot study comparing conventional and statistical approaches

Methods Matter: p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Causal Analysis in Economics: Comment

Statistics as a Social Activity: Attitudes toward Amalgamating Evidence

Statistical significance misuse in public health research: an investigation of the current situation and possible solutions

Invited Commentary: The Need for Cognitive Science in Methodology

Semantic and Cognitive Tools to Aid Statistical Science: Replace Confidence and Significance by Compatibility and Surprise

Assumption-checking rather than (just) testing: The importance of visualization and effect size in statistical diagnostics

Improved Differentially Private Analysis of Variance

Detecting Corruption: Evidence from a World Bank project in Kenya

Comments on the Neyman-Fisher Controversy and Its Consequences

Influence of data visualisations on laboratorians' acceptance of method comparison studies

Subtleties in Bayesian decision-theoretic analysis for forensic findings: Notes on recent discussion of the role of validation study data in rational decision making

Discontinuous Distribution of Test Statistics Around Significance Thresholds in Empirical Accounting Studies

Research anomalies in criminology: How serious? How extensive over time? And who was responsible?

Statistical tests and research assessments: A comment on Schneider (2012).