Timeline for How much can you trust a reference of a paper that is not available
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2014 at 23:39 | comment | added | user-2147482637 | 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 | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 23:38 | vote | accept | user-2147482637 | ||
| Apr 7, 2014 at 16:21 | comment | added | ff524 | @NateEldredge agreed, clarified in an edit | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 16:17 | history | edited | ff524 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 280 characters in body; added 95 characters in body; deleted 1 characters in body; added 19 characters in body
|
| Apr 7, 2014 at 16:15 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | Sure. I guess by "reliable" I meant "reliable enough for your purposes". | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 16:13 | comment | added | ff524 | @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. | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 16:05 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | 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. | |
| Apr 7, 2014 at 3:28 | history | edited | ff524 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 181 characters in body; deleted 16 characters in body
|
| Apr 7, 2014 at 3:07 | history | answered | ff524 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |