andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-172 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Panos Ipeirotis writes in his blog post : Everyone who has attended a conference knows that the quality of the talks is very uneven. There are talks that are highly engaging, entertaining, and describe nicely the research challenges and solutions. And there are talks that are a waste of time. Either the presenter cannot present clearly, or the presented content is impossible to digest within the time frame of the presentation. We already have reviewing for the written part. The program committee examines the quality of the written paper and vouch for its technical content. However, by looking at a paper it is impossible to know how nicely it can be presented. Perhaps the seemingly solid but boring paper can be a very entertaining presentation. Or an excellent paper may be written by a horrible presenter. Why not having a second round of reviewing, where the authors of accepted papers submit their presentations (slides and a YouTube video) for presentation to the conference.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Panos Ipeirotis writes in his blog post : Everyone who has attended a conference knows that the quality of the talks is very uneven. [sent-1, score-0.671]
2 There are talks that are highly engaging, entertaining, and describe nicely the research challenges and solutions. [sent-2, score-0.577]
3 Either the presenter cannot present clearly, or the presented content is impossible to digest within the time frame of the presentation. [sent-4, score-0.54]
4 We already have reviewing for the written part. [sent-5, score-0.311]
5 The program committee examines the quality of the written paper and vouch for its technical content. [sent-6, score-0.809]
6 However, by looking at a paper it is impossible to know how nicely it can be presented. [sent-7, score-0.545]
7 Perhaps the seemingly solid but boring paper can be a very entertaining presentation. [sent-8, score-0.706]
8 Or an excellent paper may be written by a horrible presenter. [sent-9, score-0.406]
9 Why not having a second round of reviewing, where the authors of accepted papers submit their presentations (slides and a YouTube video) for presentation to the conference. [sent-10, score-0.804]
10 The paper will be accepted and be included in the proceedings anyway but having a paper does not mean that the author gets a slot for an oral presentation. [sent-11, score-1.183]
11 Under an oral presentation peer review, a committee looks at the presentation, votes on accept/reject and potentially provides feedback to the presenter. [sent-12, score-1.149]
12 The best presentations get a slot on the conference program. [sent-13, score-0.615]
13 While I’ve enjoyed quiet time for meditation during boring talks, this is a very interesting idea – cost permitting. [sent-14, score-0.474]
14 As the cost of producing a paper and a presentation to pass peer review goes into weeks, a lot of super-interesting early-stage research just moves off the radar. [sent-15, score-1.086]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('talks', 0.299), ('presentation', 0.278), ('slot', 0.249), ('oral', 0.238), ('presentations', 0.208), ('nicely', 0.204), ('paper', 0.192), ('entertaining', 0.186), ('committee', 0.182), ('boring', 0.17), ('reviewing', 0.167), ('conference', 0.158), ('peer', 0.15), ('impossible', 0.149), ('accepted', 0.147), ('written', 0.144), ('presenter', 0.132), ('youtube', 0.132), ('radar', 0.119), ('quality', 0.118), ('cost', 0.117), ('examines', 0.111), ('digest', 0.106), ('proceedings', 0.102), ('quiet', 0.102), ('review', 0.098), ('attended', 0.096), ('engaging', 0.096), ('round', 0.091), ('producing', 0.089), ('video', 0.089), ('moves', 0.087), ('feedback', 0.086), ('frame', 0.086), ('enjoyed', 0.085), ('waste', 0.082), ('seemingly', 0.08), ('submit', 0.08), ('slides', 0.079), ('solid', 0.078), ('votes', 0.076), ('pass', 0.075), ('potentially', 0.075), ('challenges', 0.074), ('horrible', 0.07), ('weeks', 0.068), ('content', 0.067), ('provides', 0.064), ('included', 0.063), ('technical', 0.062)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 172 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-30-Why don’t we have peer reviewing for oral presentations?
Introduction: Panos Ipeirotis writes in his blog post : Everyone who has attended a conference knows that the quality of the talks is very uneven. There are talks that are highly engaging, entertaining, and describe nicely the research challenges and solutions. And there are talks that are a waste of time. Either the presenter cannot present clearly, or the presented content is impossible to digest within the time frame of the presentation. We already have reviewing for the written part. The program committee examines the quality of the written paper and vouch for its technical content. However, by looking at a paper it is impossible to know how nicely it can be presented. Perhaps the seemingly solid but boring paper can be a very entertaining presentation. Or an excellent paper may be written by a horrible presenter. Why not having a second round of reviewing, where the authors of accepted papers submit their presentations (slides and a YouTube video) for presentation to the conference.
2 0.15555975 1911 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-23-AI Stats conference on Stan etc.
Introduction: Jaakko Peltonen writes: The Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (http://www.aistats.org) will be next April in Reykjavik, Iceland. AISTATS is an interdisciplinary conference at the intersection of computer science, artificial intelligence, machine learning, statistics, and related areas. ============================================================================== AISTATS 2014 Call for Papers Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics April 22 – 25, 2014, Reykjavik, Iceland http://www.aistats.org Colocated with a MLSS Machine Learning Summer School ============================================================================== AISTATS is an interdisciplinary gathering of researchers at the intersection of computer science, artificial intelligence, machine learning, statistics, and related areas. Since its inception in 1985, the primary goal of AISTATS has been to broaden research in the
3 0.13162163 1798 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-11-Continuing conflict over conflict statistics
Introduction: Mike Spagat sends along a serious presentation with an ironic title: 18.7 MILLION ANNIHILATED SAYS LEADING EXPERT IN PEER–REVIEWED JOURNAL: AN APPROVED, AUTHORITATIVE, SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION MADE BY AN EXPERT He’ll be speaking on it at tomorrow’s meeting of the Catastrophes and Conflict Forum of the Royal Society of Medicine in London. All I can say is, it’s a long time since I’ve seen a slide presentation in portrait form. It brings me back to the days of transparency sheets.
Introduction: Mike Spagat points to this interview , which, he writes, covers themes that are discussed on the blog such as wrong ideas that don’t die, peer review and the statistics of conflict deaths. I agree. It’s good stuff. Here are some of the things that Spagat says (he’s being interviewed by Joel Wing): In fact, the standard excess-deaths concept leads to an interesting conundrum when combined with an interesting fact exposed in the next-to-latest Human Security Report ; in most countries child mortality rates decline during armed conflict (chapter 6). So if you believe the usual excess-death causality story then you’re forced to conclude that many conflicts actually save the lives of many children. Of course, the idea of wars savings lives is pretty hard to swallow. A much more sensible understanding is that there are a variety of factors that determine child deaths and that in many cases the factors that save the lives of children are stronger than the negative effects that confli
5 0.10799956 1429 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-26-Our broken scholarly publishing system
Introduction: I get about 10 requests to referee journal articles each week . At this point, even the saying No part is getting tiring. I think I’d much prefer Kriegeskorte’s system of post-publication review where whatever you write about a paper is open and available to all to read, and where you can devote your review efforts to papers worth reviewing (either because of their inherent quality or importance, or because they’ve been hyped and need to be corrected).
6 0.10176963 884 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-01-My course this fall on Bayesian Computation
7 0.10167338 1992 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-21-Workshop for Women in Machine Learning
8 0.10137398 680 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-26-My talk at Berkeley on Wednesday
9 0.10051841 453 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-07-Biostatistics via Pragmatic and Perceptive Bayes.
10 0.093462981 31 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-13-Visualization in 1939
11 0.092676282 2207 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-11-My talks in Bristol this Wed and London this Thurs
12 0.091066107 492 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-30-That puzzle-solving feeling
13 0.086721689 1393 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-The reverse-journal-submission system
14 0.085758351 1120 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-15-Fun fight over the Grover search algorithm
15 0.085746311 1928 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-06-How to think about papers published in low-grade journals?
16 0.085489176 1613 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-09-Hey—here’s a photo of me making fun of a silly infographic (from last year)
17 0.083920635 1854 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-13-A Structural Comparison of Conspicuous Consumption in China and the United States
19 0.082125612 2006 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-03-Evaluating evidence from published research
20 0.078245066 313 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-03-A question for psychometricians
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.106), (1, -0.046), (2, -0.061), (3, -0.037), (4, -0.003), (5, -0.018), (6, -0.011), (7, -0.062), (8, -0.03), (9, -0.012), (10, 0.07), (11, 0.01), (12, -0.003), (13, 0.003), (14, 0.032), (15, -0.05), (16, 0.016), (17, 0.02), (18, -0.0), (19, -0.007), (20, -0.001), (21, 0.009), (22, 0.028), (23, -0.023), (24, 0.005), (25, 0.008), (26, -0.02), (27, -0.032), (28, 0.07), (29, 0.003), (30, -0.016), (31, -0.019), (32, 0.017), (33, -0.051), (34, 0.004), (35, -0.045), (36, 0.034), (37, -0.019), (38, 0.024), (39, 0.04), (40, 0.023), (41, -0.019), (42, 0.014), (43, 0.004), (44, 0.015), (45, 0.001), (46, 0.039), (47, -0.017), (48, 0.004), (49, 0.004)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96375829 172 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-30-Why don’t we have peer reviewing for oral presentations?
Introduction: Panos Ipeirotis writes in his blog post : Everyone who has attended a conference knows that the quality of the talks is very uneven. There are talks that are highly engaging, entertaining, and describe nicely the research challenges and solutions. And there are talks that are a waste of time. Either the presenter cannot present clearly, or the presented content is impossible to digest within the time frame of the presentation. We already have reviewing for the written part. The program committee examines the quality of the written paper and vouch for its technical content. However, by looking at a paper it is impossible to know how nicely it can be presented. Perhaps the seemingly solid but boring paper can be a very entertaining presentation. Or an excellent paper may be written by a horrible presenter. Why not having a second round of reviewing, where the authors of accepted papers submit their presentations (slides and a YouTube video) for presentation to the conference.
2 0.76013052 1393 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-The reverse-journal-submission system
Introduction: I’ve whined before in this space that some of my most important, innovative, and influential papers are really hard to get published. I’ll go through endless hassle with a journal or sometimes several journals until I find some place willing to publish. It’s just irritating. I was thinking about this recently because a colleague and I just finished a paper that I love love love. But I can’t figure out where to submit it. This is a paper for which I would prefer the so-called reverse-journal-submission approach. Instead of sending the paper to journal after journal after journal, waiting years until an acceptance (recall that, unless you’re Bruno Frey, you’re not allowed to submit the same paper to multiple journals simultaneously), you post the paper on a public site, and then journals compete to see who gets to publish it. I think that system would work well with a paper like this which is offbeat but has a nontrivial chance of becoming highly influential. P.S. Just to clar
3 0.73938888 1916 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-The weirdest thing about the AJPH story
Introduction: Earlier today I posted a weird email that began with “You are receiving this notice because you have published a paper with the American Journal of Public Health within the last few years” and continued with a sleazy attempt to squeeze $1000 out of me so that an article that I sent them for free could be available to the public. $1000 might seem like a lot, but they assured me that “we are extending this limited time offer of open access at a steeply discounted rate.” Sort of like a Vegematic but without that set of Ginsu knives thrown in for free. But then when I was responding to comments, I realized that . . . I didn’t actually remember ever publishing anything in that journal. It’s not on my list of 100+ journals. I did a search on my published papers page and couldn’t find anything closer than the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health (and that was not within the last few years). I checked Google Scholar. And then I went straight to the AJPH webpage and sea
4 0.73691314 1120 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-15-Fun fight over the Grover search algorithm
Introduction: Joshua Vogelstein points me to this blog entry by Robert Tucci, diplomatically titled “Unethical or Really Dumb (or both) Scientists from University of Adelaide ‘Rediscover’ My Version of Grover’s Algorithm”: The Chappell et al. paper has 24 references but does not refer to my paper, even though their paper and mine are eerily similar. Compare them yourself. With the excellent Google and ArXiv search engines, I [Tucci] would say there is zero probability that none of its five authors knew about my paper before they wrote theirs. Chappell responds in the comments: Your paper is timestamped 2010; however the results of our paper was initially presented at the Cairns CQIQC conference in July 2008. . . . The intention of our paper is not a research article. It is a tutorial paper. . . . We had not seen your paper before. Our paper is based on the standard Grover search, not a fixed point search. Hence, your paper did not come to our attention, as we were not concerned with
5 0.73508763 1928 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-06-How to think about papers published in low-grade journals?
Introduction: We’ve had lots of lively discussions of fatally-flawed papers that have been published in top, top journals such as the American Economic Review or the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology or the American Sociological Review or the tabloids . And we also know about mistakes that make their way into mid-ranking outlets such as the Journal of Theoretical Biology. But what about results that appear in the lower tier of legitimate journals? I was thinking about this after reading a post by Dan Kahan slamming a paper that recently appeared in PLOS-One. I won’t discuss the paper itself here because that’s not my point. Rather, I had some thoughts regarding Kahan’s annoyance that a paper with fatal errors was published at all. I commented as follows: Read between the lines. The paper originally was released in 2009 and was published in 2013 in PLOS-One, which is one step above appearing on Arxiv. PLOS-One publishes some good things (so does Arxiv) but it’s the place
6 0.72772545 675 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-22-Arrow’s other theorem
8 0.71636194 1911 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-23-AI Stats conference on Stan etc.
9 0.71360785 1118 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-14-A model rejection letter
10 0.70677972 2004 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-01-Post-publication peer review: How it (sometimes) really works
11 0.70533967 1137 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-24-Difficulties in publishing non-replications of implausible findings
12 0.70471442 1917 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-28-Econ coauthorship update
13 0.70405489 883 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-01-Arrow’s theorem update
14 0.70193213 631 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-28-Explaining that plot.
15 0.70190537 1321 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-15-A statistical research project: Weeding out the fraudulent citations
16 0.69997847 834 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-01-I owe it all to the haters
17 0.69880658 1429 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-26-Our broken scholarly publishing system
18 0.68883926 1329 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-18-Those mean psychologists, making fun of dodgy research!
19 0.68436474 2095 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-09-Typo in Ghitza and Gelman MRP paper
20 0.68251318 109 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-25-Classics of statistics
topicId topicWeight
[(4, 0.02), (13, 0.257), (15, 0.041), (16, 0.06), (19, 0.013), (21, 0.028), (24, 0.097), (34, 0.031), (54, 0.011), (61, 0.012), (64, 0.014), (65, 0.041), (86, 0.016), (87, 0.02), (95, 0.022), (97, 0.01), (99, 0.204)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.91890264 1514 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-28-AdviseStat 47% Campaign Ad
Introduction: Lee Wilkinson sends me this amusing ad for his new software, AdviseStat: The ad is a parody, but the software is real !
2 0.91413605 345 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-Things we do on sabbatical instead of actually working
Introduction: Frank Fischer, a political scientist at Rutgers U., says his alleged plagiarism was mere sloppiness and not all that uncommon in scholarship. I’ve heard about plagiarism but I had no idea it occurred in political science.
3 0.89214617 800 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-13-I like lineplots
Introduction: These particular lineplots are called parallel coordinate plots.
same-blog 4 0.88545871 172 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-30-Why don’t we have peer reviewing for oral presentations?
Introduction: Panos Ipeirotis writes in his blog post : Everyone who has attended a conference knows that the quality of the talks is very uneven. There are talks that are highly engaging, entertaining, and describe nicely the research challenges and solutions. And there are talks that are a waste of time. Either the presenter cannot present clearly, or the presented content is impossible to digest within the time frame of the presentation. We already have reviewing for the written part. The program committee examines the quality of the written paper and vouch for its technical content. However, by looking at a paper it is impossible to know how nicely it can be presented. Perhaps the seemingly solid but boring paper can be a very entertaining presentation. Or an excellent paper may be written by a horrible presenter. Why not having a second round of reviewing, where the authors of accepted papers submit their presentations (slides and a YouTube video) for presentation to the conference.
5 0.88140595 1559 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-02-The blog is back
Introduction: We had some security problem: not an actual virus or anything, but a potential leak which caused Google to blacklist us. Cord fixed us and now we’re fine. Good job, Google! Better to find the potential problem before there is any harm!
6 0.88123524 234 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-25-Modeling constrained parameters
7 0.87077868 1789 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-05-Elites have alcohol problems too!
8 0.82306439 1137 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-24-Difficulties in publishing non-replications of implausible findings
9 0.82240218 437 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-29-The mystery of the U-shaped relationship between happiness and age
10 0.81477249 971 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-25-Apply now for Earth Institute postdoctoral fellowships at Columbia University
11 0.81358862 1852 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-12-Crime novels for economists
12 0.80330324 1509 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-24-Analyzing photon counts
13 0.80315387 597 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-02-RStudio – new cross-platform IDE for R
14 0.8003124 424 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-21-Data cleaning tool!
15 0.79817772 1916 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-The weirdest thing about the AJPH story
16 0.79674613 1942 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-17-“Stop and frisk” statistics
18 0.79600132 1519 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-02-Job!
20 0.77796292 817 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-23-New blog home