>Well, although the specimen was nearly strain-free, strictly speaking this
>was still a size-strain round robin; all the participants extracted (or
>refined) strain parameters, didn't they :-)
Before to start, the Round Robin participants were said :
"Although the first sample selected for the Round Robin shows
isotropic line broadening, future samples will exhibit anisotropic
line broadening."
Another option would have been to not give that assumption of
isotropic line broadening, which certainly bias the possibility for more
spread results (and personally, I have proposed 2 sets of results :
with isotropic and anisotropic line broadening).
A third option could have been to give 2 assumptions : Although
the first sample selected for the Round Robin shows isotropic
line broadening and size-effect only, future samples will exhibit
anisotropic line broadening and/or both size/strain effects. Then
the participants would have extracted only the size, isotropic,
and the spread on the results would have been even narrower.
Round Robin organizers have some latitude, fortunately. The
participants measured strain because you did not say that the
sample was almost strain-free. The participants used isotropic
line broadening because you told them to do so. Anyway, in
a manuscript submitted for publication, the authors could well
say : we tried anisotropic and size/strain effects, and concluded
that the sample shows isotropic line-broadening and is
strain-free, so that calculations were made again assuming
isotropy and no strain effect. The R factors were similar in both
cases. That paper would be accepted for publication (if I was
the reviewer ;-).
Best,
Armel
