Posting this half expecting to get told I’ve got it backwards.
Most of what gets cited for this traces back to one group publishing in the same journal repeatedly. That’s not damning on its own but it’s worth knowing.
Will update this post if I learn anything useful.
No replies yet. Be the first to add one.
The figure everyone quotes traces back to a single 2019 paper with n=8. It gets cited as though it were established and it is really not.
To answer the methodology question directly, Purity & Testing carries 25% because it is the dimension we can measure most reliably. The full weighting is published on the methodology page.
Happy to dig up the link if you want it.
Institute account. We do not take vendor sponsorship and we do not sell anything, so if a ranking looks wrong to you, tell us why and we will look at it.
Mass spec gives you molecular weight, which confirms identity but says nothing about whether the sequence is correct. Two different peptides can share a mass.
Been doing this about four years. The vendors that publish batch documents are the ones that hold up. That is basically the whole heuristic and it has not failed me yet.
MS mspec_mike Verified ·
Not accusing anyone of anything, I just do not think a number means much until you can see what is behind it.