The addition of significant stars was, in my opinion, one of the worst defaults ever added to R.?? I would be delighted to see it removed, or at least change the default.? It is one of the few overrides that I have argued to add to our site-wide defaults file. My bias comes from 30+ years in a medical statistics career where fighting the disease of "dichotomania" has been an eternal struggle.? Continuous covariates are split in two, nuanced risk scores are thresholded, decisions become yes/no, ....??? Adding stars to output is, to me, simply a gateway drug to this pernicous addiction.?? We shouldn't encourage it. Wrt Abe's rant about the Nature article:? I've read the article and found it to be well reasoned, and I can't say the same about the rant.?? The issue in biomedical science is that the p-value has fallen victim to Goodhart's law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."? The article argues, and I would agree, that the .05 yes/no decision rule is currently doing more harm than good in biomedical research.?? What to do instead of this is a tough question, but it is fairly clear that the current plan isn't working.?? I have seen many cases of two papers which both found a risk increase of 1.9 for something where one paper claimed "smoking gun" and the other "completely exonerated".?? Do YOU want to take a drug with 2x risk and a p= 0.2 'proof' that it is okay??? Of course, if there is too much to do and too little time, people will find a way to create a shortcut yes/no rule no matter what we preach.?? (We statisticians will do it too.) Terry T. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]