Reprising the part of this that the last few posts have moved away from:
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.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
NurseLeah_Nash said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
NurseLeah_Nash said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Coming at NurseLeah_Nash’s question from a different direction. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsWorth restating a point from upthread for anyone joining at this page:
The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
Following on from NurseLeah_Nash — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?