50% of neuroscience papers suffer from a major statistical error.
The short version of the error: If in your data you find that A has no statistically significant effect, but B does have a statistically significant effect, this does <i>not</i> automatically show that B has, with statistical significance, more effect than A. To do that you have to do a statistical test on the difference in the effects.<p>I believe (?) this is normally done correctly in medical studies with placebos, where the typical analysis is to show that a drug has a statistically significant effect compared to the placebo baseline; it's not sufficient to show that the drug has an effect compared to a no-drug baseline, and, separately, that a placebo doesn't.