In reply: Comment on an article written by Vanita Ahuja et al.?

Comment on Article by Celeux Et Al

The authors point to several problems occurring if DIC = 2D(θ) − D(θ) is applied to missing data models: (i) the focus of the model depends on whether the missing data z are considered as observations or as parameters or integrated out; (ii) the parameter θ may be non-identifiable; (iii) θ can be a poor estimator of θ. They then investigate modifications of DIC mainly based on estimates other t...

Reply to Comment by Young et al.

Had our study been, as Young et al. imply, a data trawling exercise using hundreds of variables to look for a 'thread', then doubts about its validity might be justified. However, their account of our work bears little relationship to the methods, results or conclusions we report. For example, Young et al. claim that we used 396 tests to address our primary hypothesis. In fact, we used two. You...

Evidence inconclusive - comment on article by Schoenfeld et al

This article comments on the study by Schoenfeld, et al. entitled "The effect of protein timing on muscle strength and hypertrophy: a meta-analysis" and discusses how the methodology led to inconclusive results.

An et al. Reply.

Reply Response to Comment by Bence et al .

We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Comment of Bence et al. (2000) regarding the suitability of the new geochemical parameter we have introduced. Part of their comment, however, addresses issues either not directly related to our paper, or issues published elsewhere. The lengthy comment seems a disproportionate reaction to what was a paper of limited scope, simply introducing one new g...