Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down at the end of May, and its replacement, statalist.org is already up and running.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: st: AW: Popularity of R, SAS, SPSS, Stata...


From   "Seed, Paul" <paul.seed@kcl.ac.uk>
From   Ronan Conroy <rconroy@rcsi.ie>
To   "statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   RE: st: AW: Popularity of R, SAS, SPSS, Stata...
Date   Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:18:14 +0100
Date   Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:05:24 +0100

>On 24 Meith 2010, at 18:37, Nick Winter wrote:

>> At the risk of provoking flames - can someone articulate the reason
>> *for* citing the statistical software used in a book or article,
>> especially in the case where only very standard statistical tools are
>> used?  We don't, for example, generally cite the word processor,
>> citation management software, and other computer tools used in the
>> course of our research....

>No potential for flames as far as I can see.

>As a reviewer I encourage the practice so that people know the  
>capabilities of software, and if they are undertaking a similar study,  
>they may be guided in their choice of software for analysis.

As a reviewer I once noticed that a particular article could 
be improved using a novel method made available through an article 
in SJ.  As the authors had declared that they had used Stata, 
I could recommend its use with fair confidence that I was not asking 
the impossible.




*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/


© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index