Re: [R] In fact this is a Stats question, but... "The return."

From: <>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 12:26:21 +0200

Dear All (particularly Peter, Steve, Bert, Ben F, Ben B, Christian and Gerrit) After clicking the "send msg" button of my previous msg I felt that probably it's better to leave the "citing issue" out of it all! Nonetheless, what I feel now (as a - fish - biologist aspiring to be a reasonable user of statistics) is that every question - even the seemingly simpler ones - has several perspectives (and even from the statistics point of view). Also, I'm trying to avoid the most commmon "mistakes" while using stats even though in a non-stats context sometimes it's very hard to explain the why, how, etc. Thanks for every reply. Regards, Eduardo.

Quoting Peter Dalgaard <>:

> wrote:
>> *Thanks* all those who took the time to help me (even if the
>> "question" was not related to - the use of - R).
>> Now I think I can soundly make my point w/ the referee (can I use
>> your replies? If so I intend to properly cite its use?!?).
> In general, I think it is best not to cite this kind of replies, at
> least not in publications. Steve E's note is a bit of an eye-opener
> in that regard: There could in fact be serious problems in your
> analysis without respondents realizing it (e.g., you could have 1700
> larvae, but they came from only 10 batches of eggs with a strong
> within-batch correlation). Judging from the text below I wouldn't
> expect that this is the case, but the risk is there. The general
> problem is that it is very difficult to give credit without also
> assigning some level of responsibility.
> -pd
>> Regards, Eduardo Esteves
>> ps - Sorry for not explaining the "biological details" of my
>> posting: RNA/DNA is the ratio of RNA content to DNA content
>> obtained for individual fish larvae (plus for each one I noted if
>> it had visible prey items in the gut or not, thus the levels Prey
>> and Empty of factor Gut); and sl is the standard length (distance
>> from the tip of snout to the posterior extremity of the hypurals,
>> the expanded bones at the end of the backbone that support the
>> caudal fin, in mm) of the specimens. In the MS, I consider the
>> relationship RNA/DNA to sl to be biologically irrelevant (due to
>> the very low r2) although statistically significant. Furthermore,
>> no effect of gut content upon that relationship is significant
>> (facilitating further analysis of pooled data).
>> ______________________________________________
>> mailing list
>> PLEASE do read the posting guide
>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
> --
> O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard ุster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
> c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
> (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918
> ~~~~~~~~~~ - ( FAX: (+45) 35327907
> mailing list PLEASE do read the posting guide and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. Received on Mon 02 Jun 2008 - 04:13:26 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 Mon 02 Jun 2008 - 04:30:37 GMT.

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

list of date sections of archive