Personal stories: if you want to talk about what led you to this compound, your journey, or how the change has affected your life, the Lounge is the place for that.
I would call that likely rather than established.
16 likes 28d
Lounge · Off topic · continued
Revisiting: The best-written scientific paper you have read posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
s.diallo, post #47: What would change my mind on best-written scientific paper is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more. Go to post
A methods point on best-written scientific paper rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.
m.wanjala, post #6: The most useful thing anyone has posted about best-written scientific paper in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again. Go to post
Two people in this thread mean different things by best-written scientific paper and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.
a.reyes, post #13: Analytics first, in my case, and I still find the practice category the harder read. Chromatography has one right answer more often than logistics does. That is what I would do. It may not be what is correct. Go to post
Industry and supply chain: post about manufacturing, pharmaceutical economics, or market dynamics if you have something substantive to contribute.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
If someone has run best-written scientific paper properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.
10 likes 25d
What I would want before treating best-written scientific paper as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.
0 likes 24d
r.serrano, post #18: An observation about best-written scientific paper that I cannot explain and am posting anyway, on the principle that unexplained observations are more useful public than private. Go to post
On best-written scientific paper, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
Lounge-level thought to close on: the measure of this place is that being wrong in public here is cheap. That is a design decision and it took work.
A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.
24 likes 23d
Nothing to add on the substance. Thank you for taking the question at face value.
1 like 22d
A digression that keeps occurring to me: the most-linked documents here are the dullest ones. Nothing gets cited like the unit-arithmetic page.
18 likes 21d
Best-written scientific paper would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
4 likes 20d
f.demir, post #29: Agreed on all of that, and I have nothing to add to it. Go to post
What I would tell a new member reading about best-written scientific paper for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.
Distinguishing three things in the best-written scientific paper discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
12 likes 19d
Unserious but true: I can now identify a certificate template at a glance and I have no professional use for that skill whatsoever.
Noting that I have skin in this question and have tried to discount for it.
0 likes 18d
n.cabrera, post #71: On best-written scientific paper, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit. If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the… Go to post
Trying to state the best-written scientific paper position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.
n.vogel, post #65: Adding thanks rather than a view. I do not have a view worth the space. Go to post
Humour: light, relevant humour is welcome. Cruel humour targeting individuals or groups is not.
That is where I would start, not where I would stop.
l.trevino, post #86: Best-written scientific paper is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at. Go to post
Having read the whole best-written scientific paper thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
i.coelho, post #38: Adjacent and interesting: you might post something about nutrition, bioavailability from a food perspective, or the sociology of weight. Adjacent to this community's core but not central. That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category. Go to post
Small methodological point on best-written scientific paper: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.