Statistics seem to be forgotten by the reviewer for many studies -  which 
amazes me, since all 'peer's for a research paper are expected to  understand 
statistics.
 
I've seen several recent papers where the statistics are questionable, and  
one in which the authors made a bone-head mistake that completely 
invalidates  their study, yet neither the peer reviewers nor EPA nor anyone on this 
List  seems to have noticed the error.
 
Also, if we're going to discuss issues such as appropriate statistics,  
let's not use Wikipedia as a reference source.  In our Masters  Beekeeping 
classes I refuse to allow the students to use Wiki sources as valid  references. 
 The Wiki   information may be correct, but it also  may be wrong.  It all 
depends on who posted it.  
 
A good example is the CCD Wiki entry that was put up and as far as I know  
still 'managed' by someone who has never seen CCD.  I gave up trying to  
correct the errors.  Every time I did, the 'manager' changed it back.
 
Jerry
 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html