This definition is based on the probability that a person who would otherwise not have been a case “flips” to being a case in response to treatment, and the probably that a non-case flips to being a case.
To me that sentence seems cryptic.
Do you mean probability instead of probably?
Maybe the reviewer considered “flips” as too casual. I think the paper might be easier to read if you either would write flips directly without quotes or choose another word.
What the difference between otherwise not have been a case and non-case?
in my view they mostly show that the reviewers simply didn’t understand what I was saying [...] From my point of view, “understanding” something means that you are able to explain it in a casual language.
If the reviwers don't succeed in understanding what you are saying you might have explained yourself in casual language but still failed.
Do you mean probability instead of probably?
Yes. Thanks for noticing. I changed that sentence after I got the rejection letter (in order to correct a minor error that the reviewers correctly pointed out), and the error was introduced at that time. So that is not what they were referring to.
If the reviewers don't succeed in understanding what you are saying you might have explained yourself in casual language but still failed.
I agree, but I am puzzled by why they would have misunderstood. I spent a lot of effort over several months trying to be as...
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.
4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.