Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" |
Date: |
Sat, 13 Jul 2013 19:47:47 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Message-ID: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|