Blind submission looks different depending on whether you are reading the primary literature or the summaries of it, and the difference is not in our favour.
31 likes 4mo
Topic summary
Blind submission and why it changes minds — the long version
This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 114, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.
r.scholten, post #11: The version of Blind submission that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live. Go to post
Post #13 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The record shows what was measured. Everything beyond that is inference and this site tries to keep the line visible.
Anyone who has looked at this more carefully, please correct the record.
l.aguirre, post #16: Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one: has anyone here actually observed Blind submission, as opposed to read about it? The thread is long and I cannot tell. Go to post
Narrowing post #30, because the general version has more than one answer.
The record shows what was measured. Everything beyond that is inference and this site tries to keep the line visible.
Caveat: everything above assumes the paperwork is what it says it is.
c.cardoso, post #37: The failure mode on Blind submission is boring rather than dramatic. It is almost always the step everyone assumes was done correctly because it is too simple to get wrong. Go to post
Taking Blind submission seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.
ambient_draft, post #59: The record shows what was measured. Everything beyond that is inference and this site tries to keep the line visible. Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me. Go to post
Janoshik Analytical: chromatographic purity and mass-spectrometric identity on submitted samples. Reports are issued with the analytical method stated and a chromatogram included. Submission is by mail.
MSaarinen, post #80: The record shows what was measured. Everything beyond that is inference and this site tries to keep the line visible. Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me. Go to post
Adding the boring version of Blind submission, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.
Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.
Read the full topic (114 posts)
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
How Janoshik, Medutest, PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate differ — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: How Janoshik, Medutest, PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate differ — does this still hold? A question about how a record should be read rather than…
|
+24 | 28 | 8k | 1mo |
|
What a documentation review can and cannot tell you — a second dataset
The question in the title: What a documentation review can and cannot tell you — a second dataset I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Posting a small dataset on documentation…
|
4 | 170 | 4mo | |
|
[2026 update] Interpreting a result that disagrees with the supplier's certificate
On the subject in the title: Interpreting a result that disagrees with the supplier's certificate Working notes rather than a conclusion. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the format the…
|
+121 | 128 | 51k | 17h |
|
Chain of custody for a sample you posted yourself
Chain of custody for a sample you posted yourself Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I was wrong about chain of custody in a thread last spring and I would like…
|
2 | 7.3k | 5h | |
|
Submitting a sample: the process end to end
On the subject in the title: Submitting a sample: the process end to end Working notes rather than a conclusion. Submitting a sample keeps being re-asked here and I think that is because the answer is…
|
+99 | 114 | 29k | 21h |
Related topics — sharing the tags Medutest, third-party testing, Janoshik Analytical
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
One lot is one lot: when a report becomes a pattern — the long version
One lot is one lot: when a report becomes a pattern — the long version — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the format the…
|
+137 | 152 | 46k | 16mo |
|
Revisiting: Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats
Revisiting: Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin Aggregate verification…
|
+22 | 26 | 23k | 17mo |
|
Publishing an inconvenient result: a case study
On the subject in the title: Publishing an inconvenient result: a case study Working notes rather than a conclusion. Publishing an inconvenient result, and specifically the version of it that the…
|
+59 | 70 | 992 | 11mo |
|
Filing a first vendor report: a worked example
Filing a first vendor report: a worked example Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Working notes on filing a first vendor rather than a conclusion. I would…
|
+1 | 5 | 12k | 15mo |
|
One lot is one lot: when a report becomes a pattern
Posting this under the heading it deserves: One lot is one lot: when a report becomes a pattern Everything below is what sits behind that. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the format the…
|
2 | 19k | 14mo |