Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • I agree that you shouldn't ignore the existing data, and that it is appropriate to cite it. But you should not use if you aren't convinced that it is reliable. Of course, if you have no reliable data, and can't produce your own, then you might not be able to proceed with this project; that's just the way it is. Commented Apr 7, 2014 at 16:05
  • @NateEldredge I would say it depends how much that value impacts the rest of the work. If you're using X as a "sane default" for something tangential, then an accepted but unreliable X is not such a concern; if your whole study hinges on X, then you have a major problem.
    – ff524
    Commented Apr 7, 2014 at 16:13
  • Sure. I guess by "reliable" I meant "reliable enough for your purposes". Commented Apr 7, 2014 at 16:15
  • @NateEldredge agreed, clarified in an edit
    – ff524
    Commented Apr 7, 2014 at 16:21
  • yea in this situation it is anthropomorphic measurements, so theres no way I can sample a large population size to get my own estimate, but it does data weighs heavily on the project Commented Apr 7, 2014 at 23:39