Content deleted Content added
m Open access bot: doi added to citation with #oabot. |
m Open access bot: doi updated in citation with #oabot. |
||
Line 79:
:"Given that there are almost eight times as many data points in this sample as in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window function."<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Hawkins|author2=Maddox|author3=Merrifield|title=No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data|doi=10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05940.x|date=2002|journal=Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society|volume=336|pages=L13–L16|issue=13|arxiv=astro-ph/0208117|bibcode = 2002MNRAS.336L..13H |s2cid=6832490}}</ref>
In response, Napier and Burbidge (2003) argue that the methods employed by Hawkins ''et al.'' to remove noise from their samples amount to "excessive data smoothing" which could hide a true periodicity. They publish an alternate methodology for this that preserves the periodicity observed in earlier studies.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Napier|first1=W. M.|last2=Burbidge|first2=G. R.|title=The detection of periodicity in QSO data sets|date=2003|journal=Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society|volume=342|pages=601–604|issue= 2|doi=10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06567.x |bibcode = 2003MNRAS.342..601N |doi-access=
In 2005, Tang and Zhang found no evidence for redshift quantization of quasars in samples from the [[Sloan Digital Sky Survey]] and 2dF redshift survey.<ref name="Tang"/>
| |||