Re: [R] Residuals -- was: Rcmdr vs SPSS in hungarian

From: Bert Gunter <>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:24:31 -0700

Inline below:

2011/4/21 Jeremy Miles <>
> Just because it comes from a book does not make it true or correct.


> Books are subject to considerably less peer review than journal
> articles.

Yes, but ... Peer review among journals is uneven, especially for those from private for-profit publishers. And even for top flight journals, dealing with articles that contain analyses of large complex data has become a considerable challenge. See e.g. "Reproducible Research."

 Publishers will publish a book written by (almost) anyone -
> I know this, because I've written some of them and they were
> published.
> There really isn't much difference, most of the time, between
> different sorts of residuals, usually they are used for eyeballing
> potential problems in your data, in which case it doesn't matter which
> you use.



Bert Gunter
Genentech Nonclinical Biostatistics mailing list PLEASE do read the posting guide and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. Received on Thu 21 Apr 2011 - 15:31:57 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Thu 21 Apr 2011 - 16:50:32 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive