Two referees have commented on a colleague's paper that "anova" should
be replaced by "ANOVA". I disagree and have at least one respectable
book on my shelf that uses anova" (& "manova") in the text. Most others
state in full "analysis of variance" with no capitalization.
Anova is not an acronym or trademark, and not confused with the same
word in another context. I cannot see the point in shrieking ANOVA at
every use. Please tell me if I'm overlooking an international standard.
I feel the referees are rather behind the times, as "anova" is now used
generally for a wider set of models than its first use. It's not helpful
nowadays for students to assume some mystic distinction between anova,
ancova, manova, and many regression-based models such as GLM.
Allan
R Allan Reese
Senior statistician, Cefas
The Nothe, Weymouth DT4 8UB
Tel: +44 (0)1305 20 6614 -direct
Fax: +44 (0)1305 20 6601
www.cefas.defra.gov.uk
This email and any attachments are intended for the named recipient only. Its unauthorised use, distribution, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.
If you have received it in error, please destroy all copies and notify the sender. In messages of a non-business nature, the views and opinions expressed are the author's own
and do not necessarily reflect those of Cefas.
Communications on Cefas’ computer systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.
You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
SIGNOFF allstat
to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
|