1. Curious Wavefunction on January 8, 2013 12:01 PM writes...

We didn't report error bars because, frankly, none of us knew how to use the relevant module in Excel.

2. RKN on January 8, 2013 1:10 PM writes...

To validate our finding we performed a western blot on three biological replicates, the second one looked the best. See figure 2.

3. johnnyboy on January 8, 2013 1:31 PM writes...

We showed standard errors for all data instead of standard deviations, because: 1) it makes data look so much better; 2) doesn't everyone ?; 3) who actually cares/know anything about correct statistical methods ?

4. connoiseur on January 8, 2013 1:43 PM writes...

@3

Providing your excuses wrt statistical methods in triplicate? Very good, sir!

5. anonymous on January 8, 2013 2:31 PM writes...

@1,3 & 4

What the hell are statistical methods? I didn't go into organic chemistry to do math. Half the time I practice Voodoo to get my reactions to work.

6. leftscienceawhileago on January 8, 2013 2:40 PM writes...

It would be more informative to just show the three observations on the graph, but the error bars make it look like we know statistics.

7. Joe on January 8, 2013 2:49 PM writes...

My Ph.D. advisor had me use 1-tailed t-tests for all t-tests, because he got more stars to put above the data that way. By the end, I was so ready to be gone I just went with it. *sigh*

8. bank on January 8, 2013 3:07 PM writes...

My postdoc advisor once insisted that I include a value for plasma cholesterol that was something like 50+/-60, because that was the "correct" way. Pointing out that the distribution of values wasn't "Normal" didn't help (maybe I should have used the word "Gaussian" instead...). It got published. Somewhere out there is a mouse with negative plasma cholesterol...

9. Spike on January 8, 2013 4:00 PM writes...

@8. I once came across data from a study on the effect of fasting on a biomarker. The mean concentrations at one timepoint made it look like the authors had a more sensitive assay than we did. I asked them if they would mind sharing the data with me. They kindly did and low and behold, they had reported negative concentrations of the biomarker from their ELISA assay for a few subjects. No wonder the mean was so low. I haven't had the heart to tell them yet but I suspect that they know. Fast forward a couple of years and the PI came and gave a presentation. The graph looked familar but something was different. I couldn't quite put my finger on it. On closer inspection, all concentrations from the publication had been increased by 100 ng/mL!

10. MDACC Student on January 8, 2013 4:01 PM writes...

We used 5 mice per cell type because that is how many fit into a cage.

11. MDACC Student on January 8, 2013 4:02 PM writes...

"We used 5 mice per cell type because that is how many fit into a cage."

12. paperclip on January 8, 2013 4:11 PM writes...

"The HPLC has peaks at 35 min. that we'd prefer not to think about. So here's the chromatogram from 0 to 30 min."

13. Bruce Hamilton on January 8, 2013 4:57 PM writes...

The detection wavelength was 254nm because lower wavelengths had extra peaks.

14. JRnonchemist on January 8, 2013 5:19 PM writes...

We rushed, skipped and handwaved through defining the system, nailing down all the work/energy inputs/outputs, and figuring out what measurements our experimental methodology needs statistically because we wanted to get on with drawing conclusions from the measurements we already had.

15. milkshaken on January 8, 2013 6:32 PM writes...

I saw a statement "All melting points were measured incorrect" in the supporting info (the Chinese authors probably wanted to say "not corrected")

16. oldnuke on January 8, 2013 8:42 PM writes...

@5 Ah, THAT'S why "combinatorial" chemistry is so hot.

Back in my day, we called that the (Thomas Alva) Edison method.

17. The Ninja on January 9, 2013 12:55 AM writes...

The sample was concentrated in CDCl3 as much as possible to hide the minor peaks in the NMR which we wanted to ignore / cannot explain

18. Spike on January 9, 2013 10:37 AM writes...

The doses were selected based upon the amount of drug that was available (the chemists couldn't make enough).

The study only evaluated dosing for 3 days because we ran out of drug.

We used a dose of 3.76 mg free base/kg because we forgot to correct for the salt factor.

Animals were dosed daily (except for weekends because we couldn't get anybody to come in to dose them.

Blood samples were collected at 0, 1, 3, 5 and 24 hours because we couldn't get anybody to stay in the lab after 4 pm.

.... and many variations on the above

19. Spike on January 9, 2013 10:38 AM writes...

The doses were selected based upon the amount of drug that was available (the chemists couldn't make enough).

The study only evaluated dosing for 3 days because we ran out of drug.

We used a dose of 3.76 mg free base/kg because we forgot to correct for the salt factor.

Animals were dosed daily (except for weekends because we couldn't get anybody to come in to dose them.

Blood samples were collected at 0, 1, 3, 5 and 24 hours because we couldn't get anybody to stay in the lab after 4 pm.

.... and many variations on the above

20. anon on January 9, 2013 12:18 PM writes...

Ubiquitous: The reaction was stirred for 16 hr at 22C... or from whatever time the tech went home to whenever he worked it up the next day, at whatever temp the lab was at that night.

21. pete on January 9, 2013 2:42 PM writes...

Cell cultures were maintained in Enriched Medium and re-fed every other day --- except for 2 or maybe 3 times.

22. Teddy Z on January 9, 2013 6:10 PM writes...

My late entry:
We processed the spectrum with a rediculous amount of linear prediction because the sample was so dilute we had to scan forever, so we undersampled in F1. Then, due to the horrible looking peakshape we applied a 5Hz exponential window function to really smooth out those peaks. Most likely the peaks I am about to rhapsodize on for the next four paragraphs are artifactual.

23. Young Padawan on January 10, 2013 1:11 AM writes...

2-Methoxy-6-(3-( (tetrahydro-2H -pyran-2-ylfoxy)-
propy1)pyridine (10)

Lactim 9 (29.0 g, 0.1 mol) and 10% Pd-C
(2.9 g) were mixed, and cyclohexene (200 mL) was added. While
adding the cyclohexene, the reaction burst into flames. The flames
were extinguished with a CO2 fire extinguisher, and the hot flask
was cooled in an ice bath. (The fire was due to the direct mixing
of 9 and 10% Pd-C, which ignited the solvent, cyclohexene. This
step has since been modified. In subsequent reactions 10% Pd-C
and cyclohexene were premixed and heated to reflux, where upon
an exothermic reaction occurs.26 After the vigorous exotherm
subsided, the substrate was added slowly. This step has been
successfully run on 40 g of compound with no further accidents.)

From : JOC, 1986, 51 (12), 2184-2191
I wish he had specified the brand of the fire extinguisher though... Doesn't seem very scientific this way.

24. Jon on January 10, 2013 9:29 AM writes...

I don't think the experimental from that JOC paper is overly honest. That's the sort of thing I'd expect to see in OPRD or maybe Org Syn and quite useful to know, although you could probably skip the firefighting details. Heck, OPRD reviewers these days would probably demand safety data on that step.

25. emjeff on January 11, 2013 10:42 AM writes...

Am I the only one who thinks this could do more harm than good? #notafan

26. Hap on January 11, 2013 2:08 PM writes...

It could be harmful if 1) people get new ideas on how to misrepresent their research (though I thought that "security through obscurity" was pretty much good for securing illusions and not much else) or 2) if people think that scientists just do what gets them paid and thus that science is socially preferred and not necessarily intrinsically useful. Neither of those consequences seems likely to me, though (for 1), publicizing the peccadillos of authors might make it easier for editors and reviewers to catch them, if they care, and might provide a socially acceptable way to pressure people to stop while for 2), it seems like there is no shortage of reasons for people to deprecate science, particularly if it tells them things they do not like).

It could also make people think that the behavior is acceptable if their sarcasm detectors are nonfunctional. Of course, if that's the case, then I wouldn't have much that I could say. Don't like that.

27. DensityDuck on January 17, 2013 7:11 PM writes...

And, of course, there's the old standby "GLOSSARY FOR RESEARCH PAPERS: STRICTLY SPEAKING".