> Seems to me knowing what I know about population dynamics,  this line alone makes everything else a bit curious as to its value. At the very least calls for a much better look.

On a similar note:

> To check or not to check. A piece of stat-checking software is shaking up psychology. The program scans articles for statistical results, redoes the calculations that led to them, and calls out slip-ups where the numbers don’t match. So far, so useful. But in August, its creators caused a ruckus when they publicly posted the algorithm’s judgments of some 50,000 papers online. Now the field is debating the etiquette of how best to use automated tools to correct mistakes. 

> Hartgerink predicted that the posts would inform readers and authors about potential errors and “benefit the field more directly than just dumping a data set”. Not everyone agreed. On 20 October, the German Psychological Association warned that posting false findings of error could damage researchers' reputations. And later that month, a former president of the Association for Psychological Science in Washington DC decried the rise of “uncurated, unfiltered denigration” through blogs and social media, and implied that posts from statcheck-like programs could be seen as harassment.

http://www.nature.com/news/stat-checking-software-stirs-up-psychology-1.21049?WT.ec_id=NEWSDAILY-20161125

PLB

             ***********************************************
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