We really don’t care what statistical method you used

Update: as pointed out in the comments, the amusing error in this article has been “corrected” (or at least, “edited away”). Thanks for your interest.
Update: I note that this article is now “Highly Accessed” ;)

An integrative analysis of DNA methylation and RNA-Seq data for human heart, kidney and liver
BMC Systems Biology 2011, 5(Suppl 3):S4

(insert statistical method here). No, really.

With thanks to Simon J Greenhill and Dave Winter.

13 thoughts on “We really don’t care what statistical method you used

  1. Pingback: Should Science Journals Publish Referees Comments with the Papers and Include Sample Workings of Any Statistical Analysis « The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

  2. Pingback: Statistics Thingy? « Another Word For It

  3. P.S. For those who are thinking about my comment as a “report from an affiliated person” – wrong guess. I am just a curious stranger. It was amusing to see the highlighted “avant-garde” phrase in the orriginal article and then watch it vanished in a few minutes…

  4. I was wondering which was this statistical method, so I entered to see the article. I ended up noticing that the responsible for statistical analysis was KZ, which is the corresponding author :S.
    On the other hand, this looks like a smart strategy to grab some attention on your work and have a “highly accessed” article ;-).

  5. Pingback: Links 7/25/12 | Mike the Mad Biologist

  6. Oleg: Although your 2:46 am comment is very remarkable, it did not leave me in the “Who is this guy?”-limbo that you might have believed it did.

    • Yes and indeed at PubMed Central. I guess this is an issue when documents are simply handed off to other organisations. It would be nice if there were one workflow which generated the final text at all locations…tell him he’s dreaming.

  7. Pingback: Analysis: When will your BMC paper be typeset? « Buried Treasure

Comments are closed.