Dear All (particularly Peter, Steve, Bert, Ben F, Ben B, Christian and Gerrit)
After clicking the "send msg" button of my previous msg I felt that
probably it's better to leave the "citing issue" out of it all!
Nonetheless, what I feel now (as a - fish - biologist aspiring to be a
reasonable user of statistics) is that every question - even the
seemingly simpler ones - has several perspectives (and even from the
statistics point of view). Also, I'm trying to avoid the most commmon
"mistakes" while using stats even though in a non-stats context
sometimes it's very hard to explain the why, how, etc.
Thanks for every reply. Regards, Eduardo.
Quoting Peter Dalgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Thanks* all those who took the time to help me (even if the
"question" was not related to - the use of - R).
Now I think I can soundly make my point w/ the referee (can I use
your replies? If so I intend to properly cite its use?!?).
In general, I think it is best not to cite this kind of replies, at
least not in publications. Steve E's note is a bit of an eye-opener
in that regard: There could in fact be serious problems in your
analysis without respondents realizing it (e.g., you could have 1700
larvae, but they came from only 10 batches of eggs with a strong
within-batch correlation). Judging from the text below I wouldn't
expect that this is the case, but the risk is there. The general
problem is that it is very difficult to give credit without also
assigning some level of responsibility.
-pd
Regards, Eduardo Esteves
ps - Sorry for not explaining the "biological details" of my
posting: RNA/DNA is the ratio of RNA content to DNA content
obtained for individual fish larvae (plus for each one I noted if
it had visible prey items in the gut or not, thus the levels Prey
and Empty of factor Gut); and sl is the standard length (distance
from the tip of snout to the posterior extremity of the hypurals,
the expanded bones at the end of the backbone that support the
caudal fin, in mm) of the specimens. In the MS, I consider the
relationship RNA/DNA to sl to be biologically irrelevant (due to
the very low r2) although statistically significant. Furthermore,
no effect of gut content upon that relationship is significant
(facilitating further analysis of pooled data).
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
--
O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
(*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) 35327907
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
