Use to enforce PNAS's statistics and reproducibility reporting — n and replication, test choice and assumptions, effect sizes with uncertainty, multiple-comparison control, randomization/blinding, sample-size justification, pre-registration where relevant, and reproducible code.
Scanned 6/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill pnas-statistics --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Pnas Statistics?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-pnas-statistics)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: pnas-statistics
description: Use to enforce PNAS's statistics and reproducibility reporting — n and replication, test choice and assumptions, effect sizes with uncertainty, multiple-comparison control, randomization/blinding, sample-size justification, pre-registration where relevant, and reproducible code.
---
# Statistics & Reproducibility (pnas-statistics)
## When to trigger
- Results report P values but not effect sizes or n.
- "Three independent experiments" is claimed but replication is unclear.
- Multiple comparisons are run with no correction.
- A reviewer is likely to ask "were analyses pre-specified?" and there's no answer.
- The analysis is not reproducible from the deposited code (`pnas-data`).
## The reporting backbone (every quantitative claim)
Each claim needs: **effect size + uncertainty + n + test + what n means.**
- [ ] **n** stated, with the unit of replication (biological vs technical replicates; cells vs animals vs subjects vs experiments).
- [ ] **Effect size** with **95% CI** (preferred) or SD/SEM clearly labeled — not P alone.
- [ ] **Exact P values** (e.g., P = 0.013), not "P < 0.05", unless extremely small.
- [ ] **Test named and justified** (assumptions checked: normality, variance homogeneity, independence).
- [ ] **Multiple comparisons** corrected (Bonferroni/Holm/FDR) when many tests are run.
## Replication and design
- Distinguish **biological replication** (independent samples) from **technical replication** (re-measurement). The former is what counts.
- State **how the sample size was chosen** (power analysis or explicit rationale), not post-hoc.
- Report **randomization** of subjects/treatments and **blinding** of measurement/analysis where applicable, or state why not.
- Report **inclusion/exclusion criteria** and any excluded data, with reasons, decided in advance.
## Discipline-specific notes across PNAS divisions
PNAS spans **Biological, Physical, and Social Sciences**, so match the rigor conventions of your division:
- **Biological:** replication unit, ARRIVE-style animal reporting, antibody/reagent validation.
- **Social/behavioral:** pre-registration is increasingly expected; report power, sampling frame, and deviations from the plan.
- **Physical/computational:** report uncertainties, error propagation, and numerical reproducibility (seeds, solver settings).
## Avoid the classic reviewer kills
- **Pseudoreplication**: treating technical replicates / cells from one animal as independent n.
- **HARKing / p-hacking**: presenting exploratory findings as confirmatory. Label exploratory work as such.
- **"Representative" images** with no quantification across replicates.
- **Bar chart + SEM** masking a tiny, variable n.
- Comparing two effects by their **significance** ("significant here, not there") instead of testing the **difference**.
## Reproducibility package
- Analysis code in a repository (see `pnas-data`), with a README and environment/versions.
- A reproducibility/reporting summary if requested; list software, versions, seeds.
- Deterministic where possible; report random seeds for simulations/ML.
## Pre-registration & transparency (where relevant)
- For confirmatory studies (especially human-subjects / behavioral work in the Social Sciences division), note **pre-registration** (OSF/AsPredicted) if done.
- Separate pre-specified analyses from post-hoc exploration explicitly in the text.
## Output format
```
【Per-claim backbone】 effect+CI / n / unit-of-n / test / assumptions → list gaps
【Replication】 biological vs technical clear? yes/no
【Sample-size rationale】 power/justification present? yes/no
【Randomization & blinding】 reported / N/A-justified / missing
【Multiplicity】 corrected? method
【Division-specific rigor】 (Bio / Physical / Social) conventions met? yes/no
【Reproducibility】 code + versions + seeds present? yes/no
【Next】 pnas-data
```
## Anti-patterns
- **Do not** report P without effect size and n.
- **Do not** count technical replicates as independent observations.
- **Do not** infer "no effect" from a non-significant test on an underpowered sample.
- **Do not** present post-hoc subgroup findings as if pre-specified.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!