2015-Mar-08, 03:25:20
Karl Boetel was not even an author, as his contribution was zero. And in your article, actually, there is only 1 author. You. And no one else. Have you seen this thread, by the way ? And what do you think ?
Yes, I also found the same result earlier, but I'm more interested to know if it's a common practice or not.
Yes, true. But What I said is : "What's the use of saying this when the reader has no way of checking this out ?". I won't push the matter however. I don't have time for little details like these. I just wanted to say that it doesn't make sense to me.
I don't comment on your other replies because I'm OK with all of them (including the changes you've made), although I don't think my interrogation about what you mean by "the trait in question would vary congenitally by this variable" has been answered appropriately.
If possible, again, you should add a complete list of references. When I review papers here, I usually look at the references, and if I find something curious about what the author says, I read the references that he cites, but in your situation, I have to guess which paper you're referring to. And it's not always easy.
Concerning this :
I will have to re-read the article once more, but I give you my approval in advance (to Part 4 at least). I will let you know if I find something, but I didn't remember it was important, because otherwise, I would have said it here.
(2015-Mar-07, 22:28:41)Chuck Wrote: Mb-Ma = 2.56 SD. No?
Yes, I also found the same result earlier, but I'm more interested to know if it's a common practice or not.
(2015-Mar-07, 22:28:41)Chuck Wrote: You are the one that asked me to provide a reference.
Yes, true. But What I said is : "What's the use of saying this when the reader has no way of checking this out ?". I won't push the matter however. I don't have time for little details like these. I just wanted to say that it doesn't make sense to me.
I don't comment on your other replies because I'm OK with all of them (including the changes you've made), although I don't think my interrogation about what you mean by "the trait in question would vary congenitally by this variable" has been answered appropriately.
If possible, again, you should add a complete list of references. When I review papers here, I usually look at the references, and if I find something curious about what the author says, I read the references that he cites, but in your situation, I have to guess which paper you're referring to. And it's not always easy.
Concerning this :
(2015-Mar-07, 22:28:41)Chuck Wrote: Point the passages out please and I will rewrite them.
I will have to re-read the article once more, but I give you my approval in advance (to Part 4 at least). I will let you know if I find something, but I didn't remember it was important, because otherwise, I would have said it here.