I'm probably thread hijacking at this point, and I'll beg Ruth's apologies.
That's a very interesting insight about my anxiety, which I readily admit to. Although I suspect that the historical narrative is the best part of the book, I might have redrafted the theory four times, though. I should also add this sat on the shelf for 4 years while I worked in industry and I'm rather humbled to still be relevant after waiting this long to publish.
My comment was intended to be more general. Errors of omission whether deliberate or not are near impossible to sort out. In truth, I am whining about the same thing you're seeing in a different field. How do you ensure that you're accurate as a researcher when the underlying data set is off?
Re: Coming Back to This
That's a very interesting insight about my anxiety, which I readily admit to. Although I suspect that the historical narrative is the best part of the book, I might have redrafted the theory four times, though. I should also add this sat on the shelf for 4 years while I worked in industry and I'm rather humbled to still be relevant after waiting this long to publish.
My comment was intended to be more general. Errors of omission whether deliberate or not are near impossible to sort out. In truth, I am whining about the same thing you're seeing in a different field. How do you ensure that you're accurate as a researcher when the underlying data set is off?
- doctor dolly