This component contains: * **2017.09.06_redefine_significance.pdf**: pdf of the Powerpoint presentation: brief overview of the possible causes behind the current reproducibility crisis, analysis of the authors' proposal to lower the threshold of significance to *p* < .005, issues associated with the proposal (including external links to some blog posts treating these issues); * **Redefine Statistical Significance (Benjamin, 2017).pdf**: the paper under discussion; * **Redefine Statistical Significance - Suppl. Mat. (Benjamin, 2017).pdf**: supplementary materials of the paper under discussion; * **A manifesto for reproducible science (Munafò, 2017).pdf**: paper proposing measures to improve reproducibility and credibility of (social) sciences; * **An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values (Colquhoun, 2014).pdf**: paper showing how easy it is to "make a fool of yourself" when using the standard *p* < .05, and proposal to adopt a more stringent threshold of *p* < .001; * **Revised standards for statistical evidence (Johnson, 2013).pdf**: using recent developments in Bayesian hypothesis testing, the author shows that current evidence thresholds for significance testing are very low and may be one of the leading causes of the reproducibility crisis. The recommendation is to lower significance thresholds to *p* < .005 and *p* < .001 (note that this paper was published in 2013); * **The ASA's Statement on p-Values Context Process and Purpose (Wasserstein, 2016).pdf**: statement from the [American Statistical Association][1] clarifying the meaning of *p*-values and their correct interpretation. **EDIT 18/09/2017**: [here][2] you can find the preprint of a rebuttal paper proposing, instead of a new threshold of *p* ≤ .005, that researchers transparently report and justify all choices they make when designing a study, including the alpha level. [1]: http://www.amstat.org/ "ASA" [2]: https://psyarxiv.com/9s3y6/ "rebuttal"