Let me rephrase: out of 12 treatments, 10 had one replicate and 2 had 2. However, these were not natural lakes or transects in geographic zones that constrained replication. These were 100 ml bottles on a table. Sorry for the oversimplification.
Edwin > Changing a little the topic, I have a question about the statement of > Edwin. He wrote: > "If the statistics are grossly inappropriate (for example running an > ANOVA with 12 treatments, but only 1 or two replicates per treatment), > adequate peer review was clearly not in place." > Well, I published a paper in which I used 2 way ANOVA with a total of 18 > groups and 2 replicates per groups. It was peer reviewed, and one of the > reviewers complained about my statistics, asking for measurements of > power, perhaps with the expectation that that particular test would have > no enough power to draw any conclusions. I used a software to measure the > power of the test (G*power 3), and found that power was the maximum > possible (1.00) for the effects due to factors 1 and 2, and 0.99 for the > interaction effect.Was my test flawed? It was peer reviewed! > Best, > > Matheus C. Carvalho > > Postdoctoral Fellow > Research Center for Environmental Changes > > Academia Sinica > > Taipei, Taiwan > > --- Em qui, 9/7/09, Edwin Cruz-Rivera <edwin.cruz-riv...@jsums.edu> > escreveu: > > De: Edwin Cruz-Rivera <edwin.cruz-riv...@jsums.edu> > Assunto: Re: [ECOLOG-L] "real" versus "fake" peer-reviewed journals > Para: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Data: Quinta-feira, 9 de Julho de 2009, 10:37 > > I believe one of the original questions was how to discern reputable > journals from those that publish dubious or biased results...or do not > accomplish proper peer review. I can point to a couple of red flags that > can be noticed without too much effort and I have observed: > > 1) If the articles in the journal come mostly from the same institution in > which the editor in chief is located, chances are the buddy system has > overwhelmed objectivity...especially if the editor is a co-author in most. > > 2) If orthographic and syntax errors are widespread, probably the review > process was not thorough. > > 3) If the statistics are grossly inappropriate (for example running an > ANOVA with 12 treatments, but only 1 or two replicates per treatment), > adequate peer review was clearly not in place. > > Now these may look like extreme cases, but I have seen too many examples > similar to the above to wonder how widespread these cases are. I have > even received requests to review papers for certain journals in which I > have been asked to be more lenient than if I was reviewing for a major > journal. This poses a particular dilemma: Is all science not supposed to > be measured by the same standards of quality control regardless of whether > the journal is institutional, regional, national or international? > I would like to think it should be... > > Edwin > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Dr. Edwin Cruz-Rivera > Assist. Prof./Director, Marine Sciences Program > Department of Biology > Jackson State University > JSU Box18540 > Jackson, MS 39217 > Tel: (601) 979-3461 > Fax: (601) 979-5853 > Email: edwin.cruz-riv...@jsums.edu > > "It is not the same to hear the devil as it is to see him coming your way" > (Puerto Rican proverb) > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados > http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com >
