kate.chem said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
I read this differently from kate.chem, on substance rather than tone. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
kate.chem said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Agreeing with kate.chem, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
kate.chem said:One practical note: write down what you did and when, before you need it.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFrom the other side of the consultation, briefly. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
Dr.NephBHM_UK said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth.