@jakebeal thanks, that's very kind of you, but I was aiming for a specific effect, and I think it wouldn't work quite as well as a comment. Anyway, thanks everyone for your advice, I didn't mean to cause controversy and am completely fine with the answer staying deleted if that's what the community thinks is best.
@ff524 Interesting, indeed, though I don't think that what they say should come up as surprising. Science, as a whole, is not as objective and self-correcting as it ideally pretends to be, because there are always psychological, traditional and economical components that strongly limit our objectivity.
For instance, sometime ago, while collaborating with a few groups in different countries on a certain topic, I tried to point out a strong limitation in their statistical analysis, suggesting what would have been a sounder approach. Their response was along the lines of: we cannot change approach, we've always done like that! Needless to say, my collaboration didn't last too long, and they'll continue with that approach.
Of course, I could have been wrong too, but the criticism was based on tradition and not on scientific judgement.
@MassimoOrtolano ugh, don't get me started on unfortunate "traditions." In my field, when I request confidence intervals (or some measure, any measure, of variation) as a reviewer, authors act like I've asked for something completely bizarre and unreasonable.
