you mean the methods are incomprehensible regardless of good writing?
-
-
-
Replying to @deevybee @shravanvasishth
I thought I did. Perhaps it's caffeine that's missing.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
reading it again I see your point, but I stand my mine. If somebody doesn't understand the methods or indeed any
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
section it's down to bad writing. That's my position.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
.
@o_guest Well, here is an e.g. I can just about comprehend this, but many wld struggle.I can't see how it could be explained more clearly?pic.twitter.com/0yJLekQVdQ
3 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @david_colquhoun
.
@david_colquhoun@o_guest I should stress this was definitely one of the better-written papers I've reviewed - by a French group....1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @deevybee @david_colquhoun
yeah, a high-level and/or simple explanation of the analysis might be useful
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The problem is that it takes quite a lot of words to describe "maximum likelihood" or "false pos rate".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
yeah, it's a huge cost benefit trade off. At the end of the day both messages and audiences can be compromised.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.