PeptideChemSF said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
PeptideChemSF said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsTrialNerd_Beth said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.
TrialNerd_Beth said:The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.