Publishing an inconvenient result: a case study posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
The record shows what was measured. Everything beyond that is inference and this site tries to keep the line visible.
Verification records are dated because they expire in usefulness. A result from two years ago describes a lot from two years ago.
The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.
This follows post #33 rather than contradicting it.
I would put moderate confidence on the mainstream reading of publishing an inconvenient result and no more. That is not scepticism for its own sake; it is where the sourcing actually stops.
I had written a reply contradicting post #33 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The confident answers on publishing an inconvenient result and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.
Confirming post #33 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Repeat determination on the same product line months apart is the measurement that speaks to consistency, and consistency is what most buyers actually want.
Where I would look next, rather than where I would stop.
Worth separating publishing an inconvenient result as a question about the compound from publishing an inconvenient result as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.
Asking the supplier before publishing a discrepancy is the convention here. Most discrepancies are explained by handling or method and asking costs a day.
I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.
Where two services agree with each other and with the declared figure, that is a genuinely strong result and it applies to that lot.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
This is the first time the answer has come with its own limits attached. Appreciated.
Appreciated. The plain phrasing does more work here than a longer post would.
Publishing an inconvenient result looks different depending on whether you are reading the primary literature or the summaries of it, and the difference is not in our favour.
Small methodological point on publishing an inconvenient result: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
Post #42 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Blind sampling: submitting without the laboratory or seller knowing the source removes the two easiest ways for a result to be shaped: selective submission and selective reporting. The extra effort is worth it.
Combining a chromatographic result with a documentation review gives a more complete picture than two chromatographic results, because the failure modes are different.
A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.
Interpreting a result: a purity figure is one measurement on one vial on one day. Agreement across two services is much stronger. A single high number does not establish a pattern.
Reporting the observation and leaving the explanation open deliberately.
Building on post #46 rather than restating it.
It does not extend to lots nobody has seen, it is not a recommendation, and it says nothing about anything other than what was measured.
Post #44 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Trying to state the publishing an inconvenient result position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.
Confirming post #46 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
What I want from this publishing an inconvenient result 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.
Agreed, and I will stop repeating the version of this I had been repeating.
Asking the supplier before publishing a discrepancy is the convention here. Most discrepancies are explained by handling or method and asking costs a day.
Post #51 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
A record with four results over sixteen months is a thin record rather than a bad one, and the honest description says which.
Building on post #51 rather than restating it.
Offering a way to settle publishing an inconvenient result rather than another opinion about it. Two measurements, taken the same way, a fortnight apart. If the difference is within the noise, the question was not answerable at this precision.
Publishing an inconvenient result has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet.
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.
On reflection I would soften that slightly.
Verification records are dated because they expire in usefulness. A result from two years ago describes a lot from two years ago.
I am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.
Post #55 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Something worth flagging about publishing an inconvenient result: the strongest-sounding claims in this thread are the ones with no source attached, which is the usual pattern and not a coincidence.
Post #59 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
My position on publishing an inconvenient result is current rather than settled. I have revised it once already and I expect to again, so treat it accordingly.