We all know what the scientific method looks like in idealized form. But the first dirty secret is that you don't actually write a paper that way. In fact, many papers are written almost in reverse, starting with the findings and working backward. Over the weekend @Worse_Reviewer shared some papers that help to convey these secrets and make grad students aware of the tacit knowledge already put to good use by their more senior colleagues. I have obtained ungated links to the papers (or similar versions) wherever available, along with two additional articles via Mike Ward.
- Cohen, J. 1994. "The Earth is Round (p<.05)."
- Gelman, A. and H. Stern. 2006. "The Difference Between 'Significant' and 'Not Significant' is Not Itself Statistically Significant."
- Gill, J. 1999. "The Insignificance of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing."
- Leamer, E. 1983. "Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics."
- McCloskey, D. 1985. "The Loss Function Has Been Mislaid: The Rhetoric of Significance Tests."
- Medawar, PB. 1964. "Is the Scientific Paper Fraudulent?"
- Sala-I-Martin, XX. 1997. "I Just Ran Two-Million Regressions."
- Stanley, TD. 2001. "Wheat from Chaff: Meta-Analysis as Quantitative Literature Review." (gated)