FYI there is an extra word “at” in: “To put that into perspective, you need an eight-times larger sample to detect an interaction than you do to detect a main effect with at an effect size…”
Typo in footnote #7: “…seem to beg incorrect”
Very minor, but the comma should be inside the quotation mark in the following: “These numbers are stated to be for “the study sample”, but”
Actually, the comma issue appears more than once: “but elsewhere they said “139 participants were randomized”, indicating that the authors conflated”
That comma issue is a matter of style rather than correctness. Americans would tend to put the comma inside the quotes in your example, but much of the rest of the English-speaking world would not. Having it outside is more logical (the comma is not part of what is being quoted, so why is it in the quotes?), and for that reason is gaining ground in technical writing where accuracy matters, even among Americans.
FYI there is an extra word “at” in: “To put that into perspective, you need an eight-times larger sample to detect an interaction than you do to detect a main effect with at an effect size…”
Typo in footnote #7: “…seem to beg incorrect”
Very minor, but the comma should be inside the quotation mark in the following: “These numbers are stated to be for “the study sample”, but”
Actually, the comma issue appears more than once: “but elsewhere they said “139 participants were randomized”, indicating that the authors conflated”
That comma issue is a matter of style rather than correctness. Americans would tend to put the comma inside the quotes in your example, but much of the rest of the English-speaking world would not. Having it outside is more logical (the comma is not part of what is being quoted, so why is it in the quotes?), and for that reason is gaining ground in technical writing where accuracy matters, even among Americans.
Yep!
Fixed. Thanks!