title: Ironing out the statistical wrinkles in "ten ironic rules".
abstract: The article "Ten ironic rules for non-statistical reviewers" (Friston, 2012) shares some commonly heard frustrations about the peer-review process that all researchers can identify with. Though we found the article amusing, we have some concerns about its description of a number of statistical issues. In this commentary we address these issues, as well as the premise of the article.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, USA. Electronic address: mlindqui@jhsph.edu.
authors.forename: Martin A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Lindquist
authors.affiliation: Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, USA.
authors.forename: Brian
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Caffo
authors.affiliation: Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, USA.
authors.forename: Ciprian
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Crainiceanu
mesh_terms: D059906:Neuroimaging; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000379:methods*; D012107:Research Design; D013223:Statistics as Topic / Q000379:methods*