Statistical significance and effect size reporting: Portrait of a possible future

The present paper comments on the matters raised regarding statistical significance tests by three sets of authors in this issue. These articles are placed within the context of contemporary literature. Next, additional empirical evidence is cited showing that the APA publication manual's "encouraging " effect size reporting has had no appreciable effect. Editorial policy will be required to affect change, and some model policies are quoted. Science will move forward to the extent that both effect size and replicability evidence of one or more sorts are finally seriously considered within our inquiry. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on matters raised by Daniel (1998), McLean and Ernest (1998), and Nix and Barnette (1998) as regards statistical significance tests. Theme issues of journals such as the present one (see also Thompson (1993)) allow various perspectives to be articulated and help slowly but inexorably move the field toward improved practices. Of course, an important recent book (Harlow, Mulaik, & Steiger, 1997) also presents diverse perspectives regarding these continuing controversies (for reviews se