One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
One thing that is still open after carl_compliance’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
PeptideChemSF said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsPeptideChemSF said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Right, and the exception is worth naming rather than left implied, because the exception is where people get into trouble.
PeptideChemSF said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is exactly what I could not find anywhere else. Taking it to my next appointment.