WANT A PROFILE LIKE THIS?
Create my FREE Plan Or learn about other options
Daniele Fanelli
PeerJ Author & Reviewer
295 Points

Contributions by role

Preprint Author 175
Reviewer 120
Preprint Feedback 30

Contributions by subject area

Computational Biology
Evolutionary Studies
Science Policy
Statistics
Computational Science
Ethical Issues
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology
Oncology
Psychiatry and Psychology
Bioinformatics

Daniele Fanelli

PeerJ Author & Reviewer

Summary

Cell Biology Ethical Issues Molecular Biology Oncology Science Policy

Editing Journals

Past or current institution affiliations

Stanford University
London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London

Websites

  • Personal Pages

PeerJ Contributions

  • Preprints 1
  • Reviewed 2
  • Feedback 2
November 19, 2018 - Version: 5
A theory and methodology to quantify knowledge
Daniele Fanelli
https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1968v5

Signed reviews submitted for articles published in PeerJ Note that some articles may not have the review itself made public unless authors have made them open as well.

March 24, 2020
No relationship between researcher impact and replication effect: an analysis of five studies with 100 replications
John Protzko, Jonathan W. Schooler
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8014 PubMed 32231868
July 30, 2015
On the challenges of drawing conclusions from p-values just below 0.05
Daniƫl Lakens
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1142 PubMed 26246976

Provided feedback on

27 Jul 2014

A surge of p-values between 0.040 and 0.049 in recent decades (but negative results are increasing rapidly too)

Response to de Winter and Dodou (2014): Growing bias and the hierarchy are actually supported, despite different design, errors, and disconfirmation-biases. I appreciate the eff...

27 Jul 2014

A surge of p-values between 0.040 and 0.049 in recent decades (but negative results are increasing rapidly too)

Reply to de Winter and Dodou (2014): Growing bias and the hierarchy are actually supported, despite different design, errors, and disconfirmation-biases. I appreciate the effort...