> 'Peer Review' does not, in itself, necessarily result in any sort of
> 'standardisation'. On the contrary, those 'peers' may find themselves
> reviewing a totally different thing each time.
I am referring to the reviewing process, which is in fact standardized. By the
way, any published paper is based on subjective reasoning, yet the output
should be 'standard quality' result.
Let's try to go a step further. I hope we could see beyond SAS. If this
discussion was only to say: "No future without SAS", OK, I give up.
In the opposite case, I'd like to ask:
"WHO TESTED PROC GENMOD ?"
Clinical trials based upon longitudinal repeated measures are common. "WHO
CONTROLS THE WAY IT HANDLES GEE MODELS?". I found that results were different
from existing (high quality!) software in C, and later SI made patches
There might be extension to highly advanced technologies, such as bayesian
models or neural networks. Who will test the algorithms?
S+ programs, are these not good?
What about extensive SAS macros as a way to develop new procedures?
And C++ programs ?
There is always an open part and a closed one, otherwise one had to develop
only in assembler !
But, don't you believe that SAS is becoming too much close-minded ?
....maybe the Institutes and CRO should buy a standardised SAS/FDA, no problem
..but I would be interested in knowing more about the hidden part.