Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together.
What I want from this blind submission thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
Topic summary
Blind submission and why it changes minds
This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 97, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.
np_gilmore, post #3: Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together. What I want from this blind submission thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it. Go to post
I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on blind submission, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.
TL4_Halvorsen, post #1: Blind submission and why it changes minds — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. What changes if the standard account of blind submission is wrong? I ask because I have been treating it as settled and I noticed this week that I could not say why. Working through the consequences rather than the evidence,… Go to post
The record shows what was measured. Everything beyond that is inference and this site tries to keep the line visible.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
The arithmetic in post #23 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Repeat testing: if you want to verify the same lot a second time, testing with a different service strengthens the conclusion. Testing with the same service verifies reproducibility but uses the same method.
The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.
32 likes 2y
On post #68 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
What I can speak to on blind submission is narrow, so I will keep it narrow rather than generalising from it. Beyond that boundary I do not know.
27 likes 22mo
I had written a reply contradicting post #81 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
An update on my earlier blind submission post: the pattern held for another six weeks and then stopped, which I did not predict and cannot explain.
33 likes 22mo
Read the full topic (97 posts)
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[2026 update] What a purity-only report leaves out
The question in the title: What a purity-only report leaves out I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the format the…
|
+97 | 103 | 5.2k | 3mo |
|
Chain of custody for a sample you posted yourself
Chain of custody for a sample you posted yourself Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I was wrong about chain of custody in a thread last spring and I would like…
|
2 | 7.3k | 5h | |
|
What a documentation review can and cannot tell you — a second dataset
The question in the title: What a documentation review can and cannot tell you — a second dataset I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Posting a small dataset on documentation…
|
4 | 170 | 4mo | |
|
What a documentation review can and cannot tell you
What a documentation review can and cannot tell you — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Something about documentation review does not reconcile and I would…
|
+79 | 83 | 950 | 11mo |
|
Chain of custody for a sample you posted yourself — one year on
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Chain of custody for a sample you posted yourself — one year on Everything below is what sits behind that. Posting a small dataset on Chain of custody. It is mine,…
|
+28 | 32 | 50k | 15h |
Related topics — sharing the tags Janoshik Analytical, VendorInvestigate, PeptideMeter
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
One lot is one lot: when a report becomes a pattern — the long version
One lot is one lot: when a report becomes a pattern — the long version — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the format the…
|
+137 | 152 | 46k | 16mo |
|
Second pass at: What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly
Second pass at: What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A question about how a record should be read rather than about…
|
+94 | 102 | 20k | 3mo |
|
Reporting a good result: why nobody bothers and why they should — one year on
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Reporting a good result: why nobody bothers and why they should — one year on Everything below is what sits behind that. The question about Reporting a good result…
|
+19 | 27 | 4.7k | 18mo |
|
Splitting a vial for two laboratories: how to do it without ruining both
Splitting a vial for two laboratories: how to do it without ruining both — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Something about splitting a vial does not reconcile and I would…
|
+64 | 70 | 4.4k | 13mo |
|
Submitting a sample: the process end to end
On the subject in the title: Submitting a sample: the process end to end Working notes rather than a conclusion. Submitting a sample keeps being re-asked here and I think that is because the answer is…
|
+99 | 114 | 29k | 21h |