I am coming to this debate very late and I don't have anything
intellectual to add, I just want to make a plea.
I am one of those SPM users that knows enough to sound knowledgable
when I really only know enough to be dangerous. I try to stay
informed but it is a moving target that gets more complicated by the
minute. I have just spent 2 hours getting up to date on the SPM list
and I now have a dozen open browsers with additional material in
each.
We can't expect all users of SPM to be experts. Several contributors
have argued that the researchers, editors, reviewers and readers all
need to take responsibility for ensuring the methods are
appropriate. Indeed. But those who provide the stats tools also have
a responsibility to ensure that the tools are user friendly. If
diagnostics are necessary (to look at residuals, stds, unthresholded
maps, whatever else is considered important), but are not easily
accessible or understandable, then it is likely they will not be
used or will be used inappropriately.
Similarly, where there is a lot of argument it is difficult for an
outside user to decide what to do. Somehow we have to provide
reasonable guidance. I think Tom's internet page describing what he
would like to see in any imaging paper is good (although it is one
of my open browsers and I haven't read it in detail yet!). I might
add that perhaps we should have a list of things all the experts can
agree a researcher should absolutely do or not do (or risk immediate
rejection) and then things a reviewer might reasonably look for but
which are debateable.
Just my 2c,
Stuart.
UPMC MR Research Center
PUH B-804
200 Lothrop Street
Pittsburgh
PA 15213
Sent by Medscape Mail: Free Portable E-mail for Professionals on the Move
http://www.medscape.com
|