I would push back on that from two perspectives:
1. I would study exactly what the journal said very
carefully. If they mandated "wilcox.test", that function has an
argument called "exact". If that's what they are asking, then using
that argument gives the exact p-value, e.g.:
> wilcox.test(rnorm(100), rnorm(100, 2), exact=TRUE)
Wilcoxon rank sum exact test
data: rnorm(100) and rnorm(100, 2)
W = 691, p-value < 2.2e-16
2. If that's NOT what they are asking, then I'm not
convinced what they are asking makes sense: There is is no such thing
as an "exact p value" except to the extent that certain assumptions
hold, and all models are wrong (but some are useful), as George Box
famously said years ago.[1] Truth only exists in mathematics, and
that's because it's a fiction to start with ;-)
Hope this helps.
Spencer Graves
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
On 2021-3-18 11:12 PM, Bogdan Tanasa wrote:
<https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/362285/about-a-p-value-2-2e-16>
Dear all,
i would appreciate having your advice on the following please :
in R, the wilcox.test() provides "a p-value < 2.2e-16", when we compare
sets of 1000 genes expression (in the genomics field).
however, the journal asks us to provide the exact p value ...
would it be legitimate to write : "p-value = 0" ? thanks a lot,
-- bogdan
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
