One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
HPLC_Greg said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsHPLC_Greg said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
HPLC_Greg said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.