pat_auckland said:The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
Following on from pat_auckland — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsstefan_berlin said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
stefan_berlin said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.