Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
Following on from EndoResFellow — and this may be the naive question:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
stefan_berlin said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsstefan_berlin said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
stefan_berlin said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
That reframing is the part I needed.