Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(18)
Of special interest was the direction of the congruence errors.
Furthermore, we verified that congruence errors were not due to correct rounding by the original authors.
We hypothesized that congruence errors would more often be in favor of the researchers' expectations.
In addition, the results of the first study showed that articles published in low-impact journals contained relatively more congruence errors than articles published in high-impact journals.
Many congruence errors could not be classified on the basis of the reported information, and so the source of these errors remained unclear.
The direction of the gross errors in the first study revealed that 46 of the 50 congruence errors resulted in a significant result.
Similar(42)
Therefore, this example would not represent a congruence error.
We contacted the authors of 21 articles that contained a congruence error.
Subsequently, the researcher may have forgotten to edit (some part of) the copied pasted results, which resulted in a congruence error.
We found a congruence error in 17.1% of the exactly reported statistical results and in 6.7% of the inexactly reported statistical results.
Because it is infeasible to recalculate the p value associated with incomplete results, these results were considered as missing values and were not taken into account when establishing the congruence error prevalence.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com