I'd like to thank the authors for this article. It concisely reinforces what all researchers and reviewers should know but, it seems, almost always forget. The article is particularly accessible to less mathematically oriented readers and, being published as an open access article in PeerJ, is inherently physically accessible. As a result I have found it a very useful teaching and consulting resource. A corollary of the findings of the review is that peer reviewers are likely to be unaware or, at very least, unconcerned about the issue of failure by authors to appropriately address and report the investigating regression assumptions. Having detected a violation of regression assumptions, I wonder if the authors have any insight into how this was addressed in those few papers that undertook appropriate checks of assumptions. My casual observation is the predominant response is likely to use of a log or square root transformation to rein in the ubiquitous right hand tail of skewed distributions of residuals or, it would seem more commonly, raw scores themselves. This may be better than ignoring assumptions but fails to exploit the potential of modern statistical methods that are better suited to the non-normal data that are so common in clinical psychology research.