A Nature paper brings back arguments on what p-values are, and how they should be consider. It also talks about the different positions of Fisher, Neyman and Pearson, on the topic [please notice that the reconstruction of the history gives a little more information than the one I gave in my previous post citing J. Franklin], and I, quite clearly, vote for Fisher. You can find the article here.
A lot of comments follow. However, the right complements of the Nature paper seems to this "LessWrong blopost" and this other on Prudentia.