Stats book says 30 replicates. You can just repeat your measurement 30 times on the same sampling unit, right? Right? RIGHT?!?

🤐

(to be fair, Dutch winters are the same, minus the Glühwein, so maybe I am better off now)

Ah, so that's how to do it! 😂

I find it hard to say. It really depends on how you score on the 1 Tol Line Storee.

I stopped using sheets a couple years ago, and this is literally the only situation where I have missed it. A tray on the bottom of the oven typically does the job.

I have named her Herman this afternoon, when a student asked me what 'his' name was. Not sure if it answered their question, but teaching needs a bit of comedy, too.

These are among my best cited and highest quality experimental work. Quite impactful, too, and I am proud to have been a major lart in those collabs. As I said, I say dumping with a touch of love. I am only hateful towards poor quality control 🤣.

We didn't get our Nat Comms papers in the journal because we aimed for Nat Comms, for instance. We aimed for Nature, but that's always a long shot. There would have been more niche journals with better fit, but with a transfer to NatComms it was a convenient, and still high-end quick fix... (dump?)

Transfer links are often an invitation to dump (get it out quick and be done with it). I am also aware of the exceptions, but often even these are also just higher-end *dumps* of what didn't get through review all the way at the top. (All understandable and fine, as long as it has proper QC).

But it's true. Sci Rep's niche means 'everything'. For most studies there are likely 15 alternative journals that fit better to the study's target niche than Sci Rep. But Sci Rep will publish any field, so you pass the gate keeping for novelty, and speed things up. It's okay, but it is what it is.

And when I say dump journal, I mean that with some love to it. We need to have places that accept aso the not so striking findings, as long as the quality of work is good and caveats have been discussed. I liked that about Sci Rep and others, but it appears that quality needs attention!

Nobody conducts a study aiming for Scientific Reports... It's a 'dump' journal and designed to be. The APCs incentivize letting bad stuff go through with poor review. That doesn't mean that all is rubbish, but they seem not very critical about quality. The good stuff was probably good before review.

I thought exactly the same. Some details or text bits in cobceptual figs may easily be overlooked, and (as in this figure) legs going straight through a table top do make a difference for credibility.

But yes, two weeks ago I used a Burgersteig to pass a Baustelle, and got yelled at by pedestrians that I should be on the road, which was literally broken up to the sewage pipes... nice

I often cycle with a 4 and 6 year-old, which is the only reason for me to be on there in the first place, as these, too, have mostly been designed for cars to cross and are a madness to cycle on...

Truth! Just the other day, I cycled next to a car that turned left, but had to brake for an elderly woman with a walking aid (she had a green light, and was well within time). This car driver literally sped up and drifted around her. No caution, no responsibility, nothing... (end of main street FS)