Visitors   Views   Downloads

Ten simple rules for writing statistical book reviews

View preprint
44 days ago
@BobMuenchen Lortie CJ. (2018) Ten simple rules for writing statistical book reviews. PeerJ Preprints6:e26924v1 https://t.co/EkEaBuyVRt
RT @cjlortie: Read an #rstats or coding book, write a review! Ten simple rules for writing statistical book reviews https://t.co/1GIxkGG3gf…
RT @cjlortie: Read an #rstats or coding book, write a review! Ten simple rules for writing statistical book reviews https://t.co/1GIxkGG3gf…
103 days ago
RT @cjlortie: Read an #rstats or coding book, write a review! Ten simple rules for writing statistical book reviews https://t.co/1GIxkGG3gf…
Defend books. Write Reviews. Counterbalance to algorithmic recommendations with the personal touch! https://t.co/1GIxkGG3gf @PeerJPreprints
Read an #rstats or coding book, write a review! Ten simple rules for writing statistical book reviews https://t.co/1GIxkGG3gf @PeerJPreprints
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Christopher J Lortie conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, performed the computation work, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The research in this article did not generate any data or code because this is an opinion paper.

Funding

The York University Faculty Association and The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis supported this synthesis project. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies