A non-believer

[Leisha Wharfield]

I'm sure that I would be initially offended by this reviewer questioning 
my choice of software, especially in such a vague way. People defend or 
oppose software rabidly based on some preference, don't they? I would 
wonder about the reviewer's affiliation.

But then I'd do what one must do to appease the reviewer: Add a footnote 
to your manuscript describing what testing you did with eprime based 
upon your own concerns about its capabilities for your specific project 
or explain clearly & thoughtfully why you thought they were unnecessary.

Leisha Wharfield
Decision Research
Eugene, Oregon, USA
leisha at decisionresearch.org

Rachel Mitchell wrote:

>Hello all :-)
>
>I have received comments back on a manuscript I submitted for publication a
>while back.
>The study it described was an fMRI study, of block design, that used E-prime
>to present the auditory stimuli.
>
>One of the reviewers has expressed misgivings though about my use of E-prime
>and its validity in this context.
>To quote them....
>"The experiment used Eprime. I am concerned about the temporal resolution of
>this program in combination with fMRI."
>
>Could the E-prime authors/technical staff comment on this statement?
>
>Has anyone else received comments like this previously?
>How did they respond?
>
>Or, if it did happen to you, what would you say to attenuate their concerns?
>
>ALL comments welcome.
>
>With very best wishes
>Rachel
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>Dr Rachel L. C. Mitchell.
>Lecturer in Cognitive Psychology, University of Reading.
>Honorary Research Fellow, Institute of Psychiatry.
>Research Psychologist, Berkshire Healthcare NHS Trust.
>
>Correspondence Address:
>School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences,
>Whiteknights Road
>University of Reading
>Reading
>Berkshire
>RG6 6AL
>
>Tel: +44 (0)118 378 8523
>Direct Dial: +44 (0)118 378 7530
>Fax: +44 (0)118 378 6715
>----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>
>
>  
>