Entering edit mode
9.3 years ago
Lluís R.
★
1.2k
I am doing a work where I assume that R and specifically Bioconductor project is the most used technology to analyse microarrays. (Is it true?) I could be wrong, how can I defend this assumption?
In general terms I would say compare citations of articles, or packages stats. But is there anything else I should do?
My fears: Even searching for reviews and looking for software and tools named there I could leave outside the new tools. If I couldn't find a good review (old, naming few tools, addressing other aspects...) how I am supposed to find the most used technology?
Why do you feel you need to know the most commonly used method? If the method you're currently using is efficient enough and producing correct results then it doesn't really matter what everyone else is doing.
Well, I wanted to do a review about microarray analysis, but I found it quite complex, so I narrow it down to R and Bioconductor. Knowing what others do makes it easier to understand if they comply with proposed standards and requirements of some journals, as well as understand if I addressed correctly the work. If I talk about package X and Y but most researchers use Z, it won't help many of them.
To be frank, if you aren't familiar enough with the field to have a good idea about how people tend to process data then perhaps you shouldn't be writing a review on that.
I know the field but I don't want to rely just on my personal experience for the review