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.
I know that the world of computer documentation often adopts the more logical “outside” placement, since whether a command string or line of code includes that comma does matter. Ditto things like NASA technical documentation. Similarly, papers in the physical sciences often do the same, since physicists tend to think logically. 😀 I just asked Grok, which said that “internet” English in technical or scientific fields tends towards “outside”, regardless of national origin, though in general mainstream American publishers still go with the American style.
I agree, comma outside is more logical, same often goes for a period. Logic is - period (and similarly comma) define the end of a sentence or separate syntactic entities, and having " after them makes no sense. But then again, I was not educated in the US originally. An now when publishing, I stick to this convention, so reviewers don't have an easy catch. But I would prefer it the other way.
Reading this was like sitting down to a "Greatest hits of p-hacking / trial misreporting" double album. Great review
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!
I know that the world of computer documentation often adopts the more logical “outside” placement, since whether a command string or line of code includes that comma does matter. Ditto things like NASA technical documentation. Similarly, papers in the physical sciences often do the same, since physicists tend to think logically. 😀 I just asked Grok, which said that “internet” English in technical or scientific fields tends towards “outside”, regardless of national origin, though in general mainstream American publishers still go with the American style.
Fixed. Thanks!
I agree, comma outside is more logical, same often goes for a period. Logic is - period (and similarly comma) define the end of a sentence or separate syntactic entities, and having " after them makes no sense. But then again, I was not educated in the US originally. An now when publishing, I stick to this convention, so reviewers don't have an easy catch. But I would prefer it the other way.