Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 24 items for :

  • "manuscript preparation" x
Clear All
Open access

Clinton C. Shock, Myrtle P. Shock, Candace B. Shock and Stuart R. Reitz

can assist them in understanding and overcoming the hurdles in manuscript preparation. Mentors and reviewers can be helpful in clearly advising authors of manuscript expectations and providing constructive suggestions. Literature Cited Anonymous 2015a

Open access

Matthew H. Kramer, Ellen T. Paparozzi and Walter W. Stroup

We examined all articles in volume 139 and the first issue of volume 140 of the Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science (JASHS) for statistical problems. Slightly fewer than half appeared to have problems. This is consistent with what has been found for other biological journals. Problems ranged from inappropriate analyses and statistical procedures to insufficient (or complete lack of) information on how the analyses were performed. A common problem arose from taking many measurements from the same plant, which leads to correlated test results, ignored when declaring significance at P = 0.05 for each test. In this case, experiment-wise error control is lacking. We believe that many of these problems could and should have been caught in the writing or review process; i.e., identifying them did not require an extensive statistics background. This suggests that authors and reviewers have not absorbed nor kept current with many of the statistical basics needed for understanding their own data, for conducting proper statistical analyses, and for communicating their results. For a variety of reasons, graduate training in statistics for horticulture majors appears inadequate; we suggest that researchers in this field actively seek out opportunities to improve and update their statistical knowledge throughout their careers and engage a statistician as a collaborator early when unfamiliar methods are needed to design or analyze a research study. In addition, the ASHS, which publishes three journals, should assist authors, reviewers, and editors by recognizing and supporting the need for continuing education in quantitative literacy.

Open access

Matthew H. Kramer, Ellen T. Paparozzi and Walter W. Stroup

We examined all articles in volume 139 and the first issue of volume 140 of the Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science (JASHS) for statistical problems. Slightly fewer than half appeared to have problems. This is consistent with what has been found for other biological journals. Problems ranged from inappropriate analyses and statistical procedures to insufficient (or complete lack of) information on how the analyses were performed. A common problem arose from taking many measurements from the same plant, which leads to correlated test results, ignored when declaring significance at P = 0.05 for each test. In this case, experiment-wise error control is lacking. We believe that many of these problems could and should have been caught in the writing or review process; i.e., identifying them did not require an extensive statistics background. This suggests that authors and reviewers have not absorbed nor kept current with many of the statistical basics needed for understanding their own data, for conducting proper statistical analyses, and for communicating their results. For a variety of reasons, graduate training in statistics for horticulture majors appears inadequate; we suggest that researchers in this field actively seek out opportunities to improve and update their statistical knowledge throughout their careers and engage a statistician as a collaborator early when unfamiliar methods are needed to design or analyze a research study. In addition, the ASHS, which publishes three journals, should assist authors, reviewers, and editors by recognizing and supporting the need for continuing education in quantitative literacy.

Open access

Matthew H. Kramer, Ellen T. Paparozzi and Walter W. Stroup

We examined all articles in volume 139 and the first issue of volume 140 of the Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science (JASHS) for statistical problems. Slightly fewer than half appeared to have problems. This is consistent with what has been found for other biological journals. Problems ranged from inappropriate analyses and statistical procedures to insufficient (or complete lack of) information on how the analyses were performed. A common problem arose from taking many measurements from the same plant, which leads to correlated test results, ignored when declaring significance at P = 0.05 for each test. In this case, experiment-wise error control is lacking. We believe that many of these problems could and should have been caught in the writing or review process; i.e., identifying them did not require an extensive statistics background. This suggests that authors and reviewers have not absorbed nor kept current with many of the statistical basics needed for understanding their own data, for conducting proper statistical analyses, and for communicating their results. For a variety of reasons, graduate training in statistics for horticulture majors appears inadequate; we suggest that researchers in this field actively seek out opportunities to improve and update their statistical knowledge throughout their careers and engage a statistician as a collaborator early when unfamiliar methods are needed to design or analyze a research study. In addition, the ASHS, which publishes three journals, should assist authors, reviewers, and editors by recognizing and supporting the need for continuing education in quantitative literacy.

Full access

Authors should consult the ASHS Publications Style Manual, the primary style guide for authors, editors, and reviewers of articles submitted for publication, before they submit manuscripts. The author instructions presented below are part of the manual and are intended to acquaint the author with ASHS publication policies and general manuscript preparation. All detailed information on manuscript structure and ASHS style guidelines are presented in the ASHS Publications Style Manual, not here.

Free access

Francis Zvomuya and Carl J. Rosen

This research was supported by the Univ. of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. Additional support was provided by Monsanto Co., St. Louis, Mo. We thank Steven Eskelsen, Monsanto, for helpful comments during manuscript preparation.

Free access

Wen-Shaw Chen, Hsueh-Wen Chang, Wen-Huei Chen and Yih-Shyan Lin

We are grateful to Paul B. Green for technical advice with microscopy and valuable suggestions in manuscript preparation. We also thank Yin-Tung Wang, Yih-Shiow Chang, and Christopher Menzel for help in manuscript preparation. The cost of

Full access

Jason Osborne and Eric Simonne

The challenges encountered and discussions generated during the review process of the manuscripts submitted to the Variety Trials category of HortTechnology have revealed the need to review issues encountered during manuscript preparation and to provide flexible guidelines for authors and reviewers. Using a question/answer format, this manuscript discusses issues related to data collection and statistical methods available to compare varieties. Clear objectives and conclusions, adequate plot size, careful selection of entries, and sound statistical procedures are considered essential. Several additional factors (following standard production practices, using multiple seed sources, reporting analysis of variance table and mean square error, reporting multiyear/multilocation trials) are regarded as desirable, with different degrees of desirability, depending on the crop. These flexible guidelines should be viewed as recommendations for authors and reviewers rather than requirements. While defining the state-of-the-art in variety trialing is of interest to all those involved, it may be difficult to achieve when resources are limiting. It is ultimately the prerogative and responsibility of the author(s) to ensure that the work is scientifically sound.

Free access

M. Brett Callaway

Financial support during manuscript preparation was provided by U.S. Dept. of Agriculture/Cooperative State Research Service Agreement no. KYX-10-91-17P to Kentucky State Univ. and is gratefully acknowledged. The cost of publishing this

Free access

George A. White and Howard E. Waterworth

We thank Joseph Foster, Kim Hummer, James Petit de Mange, Henry Shands, and Allan Stoner for editorial suggestions and Vicki Binstock for figure and manuscript preparation. The cost of publishing this paper was defrayed in part by the