> AFNI, SPM and FSL are used by researchers who want's to publish. And you want to communicate your results to the journal
> that you submit to. When using SPM you can check a box and it automatically gives you results that are FWE corrected (usually
> feels less conservative but that's another discussion). Then you simply write, these results came form SPM, they are FWE
> corrected/adjusted. And the reviewer will understand this and see the results as "significant"...
>
> I also hope you understand that it is kind of frustrating to not have an "offical way" on how to do these things =).

In general, it is to some extent desirable to standardize a modeling/processing streamline for easy communications as well as for reproducibility. However, when the modeling/processing approach under discussion remains fluid and has not yet reached maturation, it is questionable and unproductive to enforce an imprimatur through drawing a line in the sand. For this reason, would it be more beneficial to the field to adopt and nurture an open culture as you said below?

> I got that your approach (which I like) is to report "everything" that is reasonable and interesting and be open about the stats (publish all scores, effect sizes, p-values).

> I just hope reviewers are getting a bit more open minded about what a signficiant finding is.

It is hard to swim against the waves, but maybe it is also worth turning the tide?

Gang



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2021 08:28AM by Gang.