title: Ten ironic rules for non-statistical reviewers.
abstract: As an expert reviewer, it is sometimes necessary to ensure a paper is rejected. This can sometimes be achieved by highlighting improper statistical practice. This technical note provides guidance on how to critique the statistical analysis of neuroimaging studies to maximise the chance that the paper will be declined. We will review a series of critiques that can be applied universally to any neuroimaging paper and consider responses to potential rebuttals that reviewers might encounter from authors or editors.
authors.affiliation: The Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
authors.forename: Karl
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Friston
mesh_terms: D059906:Neuroimaging; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000379:methods*; D012107:Research Design; D013223:Statistics as Topic / Q000379:methods*