andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-282 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: I received the following email: Ms. No.: *** Title: *** Corresponding Author: *** All Authors: *** Dear Dr. Gelman, Because of your expertise, I would like to ask your assistance in determining whether the above-mentioned manuscript is appropriate for publication in ***. The abstract is pasted below. . . . My reply: I would rather not review this article. I suggest ***, ***, and *** as reviewers. I think it would be difficult for me to review the manuscript fairly.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Gelman, Because of your expertise, I would like to ask your assistance in determining whether the above-mentioned manuscript is appropriate for publication in ***. [sent-4, score-1.682]
2 My reply: I would rather not review this article. [sent-9, score-0.438]
3 I think it would be difficult for me to review the manuscript fairly. [sent-11, score-0.998]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('manuscript', 0.467), ('pasted', 0.323), ('assistance', 0.29), ('review', 0.254), ('determining', 0.252), ('dear', 0.234), ('fairly', 0.199), ('corresponding', 0.194), ('expertise', 0.193), ('abstract', 0.164), ('gelman', 0.151), ('publication', 0.151), ('title', 0.15), ('author', 0.147), ('received', 0.145), ('suggest', 0.144), ('appropriate', 0.144), ('email', 0.141), ('ask', 0.13), ('difficult', 0.127), ('authors', 0.126), ('would', 0.113), ('reply', 0.099), ('whether', 0.098), ('following', 0.09), ('rather', 0.071), ('like', 0.037), ('think', 0.037)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 282 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-17-I can’t escape it
Introduction: I received the following email: Ms. No.: *** Title: *** Corresponding Author: *** All Authors: *** Dear Dr. Gelman, Because of your expertise, I would like to ask your assistance in determining whether the above-mentioned manuscript is appropriate for publication in ***. The abstract is pasted below. . . . My reply: I would rather not review this article. I suggest ***, ***, and *** as reviewers. I think it would be difficult for me to review the manuscript fairly.
2 0.16260633 836 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-03-Another plagiarism mystery
Introduction: Nick Cox comments : I heard of a leading U.S. statistician who delegates some of his book reviews to smart graduate students. The (very grateful) ex-student who told me said, in effect, it’s just his way of working. He makes the deal evident beforehand and makes it up to you in other ways by superb mentoring. I don’t understand this at all! If the student wrote the review, he or she should be sole author, no? The thing that puzzles me about this story is that if you’re a “leading statistician,” you don’t really get any credit for reviewing. If anything, people probably think you’re writing reviews as a way to avoid doing real work. If there’s some concern that the journal won’t publish a review under the sole authorship of obscure student X, they could always compromise and include the senior prof as a second author on the review (in which case the prof should at least read the review and vet it, but that can’t take much time). I guess what I’m saying is that it makes pe
3 0.1471339 2111 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-23-Tables > figures yet again
Introduction: I received the following email from someone who would like to remain anonymous: A journal editor made me change all my figures into tables. I complied, but I sent along one of your papers on the topic of figures versus tables. I got the following email in response which I thought you’d find funny: Yes, statisticians prefer figures over tables. However, you are not writing this manuscript for statisticians. Your audience will be clinicians, nurses, epidemiologists and public health professionals. The funny thing is, I think of biomedical journals (Jama, etc) as being pretty good about using graphs to convey their main results. They’re not as good as physicists, but they’re often better than statisticians!
4 0.14659655 146 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-14-The statistics and the science
Introduction: Yesterday I posted a review of a submitted manuscript where I first wrote that I read the paper only shallowly and then followed up with some suggestions on the statistical analysis, recommending that overdispersion be added to a fitted Posson regression and that the table of regression results be supplemented with a graph showing data and fitted lines. A commenter asked why I wrote such an apparently shallow review, and I realized that some of the implications of my review were not as clear as I’d thought. So let me clarify. There is a connection between my general reaction and my statistical comments. My statistical advice here is relevant for (at least) two reasons. First, a Poisson regression without overdispersion will give nearly-uninterpretable standard errors, which means that I have no sense if the results are statistically significant as claimed. Second, with a time series plot and regression table, but no graph showing the estimated treatment effect, it is very dif
Introduction: See page 179 here for Gowa’s review from 1986. And here’s my version (from 2008).
6 0.13056555 2239 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-09-Reviewing the peer review process?
7 0.12206287 645 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-04-Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?
8 0.11078981 18 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-$63,000 worth of abusive research . . . or just a really stupid waste of time?
9 0.10930408 1291 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-30-Systematic review of publication bias in studies on publication bias
10 0.10778836 1700 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-31-Snotty reviewers
11 0.10198189 1922 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-02-They want me to send them free material and pay for the privilege
12 0.098324575 503 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-04-Clarity on my email policy
13 0.097863801 2148 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Spam!
14 0.096236974 406 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-10-Translating into Votes: The Electoral Impact of Spanish-Language Ballots
15 0.092463255 1074 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-20-Reading a research paper != agreeing with its claims
16 0.087080851 2248 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-15-Problematic interpretations of confidence intervals
17 0.085253641 343 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-?
18 0.082608029 27 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-11-Update on the spam email study
19 0.079570569 2157 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-02-2013
20 0.078588858 2118 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-30-???
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.084), (1, -0.024), (2, -0.036), (3, -0.054), (4, -0.006), (5, -0.002), (6, 0.019), (7, -0.06), (8, -0.013), (9, 0.014), (10, 0.079), (11, -0.037), (12, 0.03), (13, 0.003), (14, 0.033), (15, 0.003), (16, 0.019), (17, -0.011), (18, 0.02), (19, -0.003), (20, 0.02), (21, 0.028), (22, 0.081), (23, -0.063), (24, 0.021), (25, -0.017), (26, 0.037), (27, -0.017), (28, -0.003), (29, -0.009), (30, -0.059), (31, 0.034), (32, -0.062), (33, 0.073), (34, -0.021), (35, -0.05), (36, 0.014), (37, -0.052), (38, 0.034), (39, -0.016), (40, 0.057), (41, -0.005), (42, -0.014), (43, -0.009), (44, 0.014), (45, 0.009), (46, 0.01), (47, -0.073), (48, 0.04), (49, -0.052)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96166545 282 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-17-I can’t escape it
Introduction: I received the following email: Ms. No.: *** Title: *** Corresponding Author: *** All Authors: *** Dear Dr. Gelman, Because of your expertise, I would like to ask your assistance in determining whether the above-mentioned manuscript is appropriate for publication in ***. The abstract is pasted below. . . . My reply: I would rather not review this article. I suggest ***, ***, and *** as reviewers. I think it would be difficult for me to review the manuscript fairly.
2 0.79363948 2239 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-09-Reviewing the peer review process?
Introduction: I received the following email: Dear Colleague, Recently we informed you about SciRev, our new website where researchers can share their experiences with the peer review process and select an efficient journal for submitting their work. Since our start, we already received over 500 reviews and many positive reactions, which reveal a great need for comparable information on duration and quality of the review process. All reviews are publicly available on our website, both at the pages of the journals and in an overview at www.scirev.sc/reviews To make this venture a success, many reviews are needed. We therefore would appreciate it very much if you could take a few minutes to visit our website www.SciRev.sc and share your recent review experiences with your colleagues. SciRev also offers you the possibility to create a free account where you can administer your manuscripts under review and create a personal journal list. Thanks on behalf of the research community, Jan
3 0.68514121 503 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-04-Clarity on my email policy
Introduction: I never read email before 4. That doesn’t mean I never send email before 4.
4 0.6720745 1922 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-02-They want me to send them free material and pay for the privilege
Introduction: Since we’re on the topic of publishers asking me for money . . . The other day I received the following email: Mimi Liljeholm has sent you a message. Please click ‘Reply’ to send a direct response. Dear Prof Gelman, In collaboration with Frontiers in Psychology, we are organizing a Research Topic titled “Causal discovery and generalization”, hosted by Mimi Liljeholm and Marc Buehner. As host editor, I would like to encourage you to contribute to this topic. A brief description of the topic is provided on our homepage on the Frontiers website (section “Frontiers in Cognition”). This is also where all articles will appear after peer-review and where participants in the topic will be able to hold relevant discussions: http://www.frontiersin.org/Cognition/researchtopics/Causal_discovery_and_generaliz/1906 Frontiers, a Swiss open-access publisher, recently partnered with Nature Publishing Group to expand its researcher-driven Open Science platform. Frontiers articles are rig
5 0.66517109 2111 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-23-Tables > figures yet again
Introduction: I received the following email from someone who would like to remain anonymous: A journal editor made me change all my figures into tables. I complied, but I sent along one of your papers on the topic of figures versus tables. I got the following email in response which I thought you’d find funny: Yes, statisticians prefer figures over tables. However, you are not writing this manuscript for statisticians. Your audience will be clinicians, nurses, epidemiologists and public health professionals. The funny thing is, I think of biomedical journals (Jama, etc) as being pretty good about using graphs to convey their main results. They’re not as good as physicists, but they’re often better than statisticians!
6 0.66137999 1915 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-Huh?
7 0.63770783 28 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-12-Alert: Incompetent colleague wastes time of hardworking Wolfram Research publicist
8 0.63515586 343 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-?
9 0.62393868 18 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-$63,000 worth of abusive research . . . or just a really stupid waste of time?
10 0.62039155 2148 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Spam!
11 0.61854488 1429 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-26-Our broken scholarly publishing system
12 0.61245829 1916 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-The weirdest thing about the AJPH story
13 0.57808298 348 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-17-Joanne Gowa scooped me by 22 years in my criticism of Axelrod’s Evolution of Cooperation
14 0.57276213 1618 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-11-The consulting biz
15 0.56313449 605 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-09-Does it feel like cheating when I do this? Variation in ethical standards and expectations
16 0.5626117 836 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-03-Another plagiarism mystery
17 0.55787301 1380 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-15-Coaching, teaching, and writing
18 0.55104136 1993 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-22-Improvements to Kindle Version of BDA3
19 0.54701465 866 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-23-Participate in a research project on combining information for prediction
20 0.53704989 859 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-18-Misunderstanding analysis of covariance
topicId topicWeight
[(16, 0.067), (18, 0.043), (24, 0.053), (46, 0.226), (53, 0.107), (99, 0.339)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.9372558 282 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-17-I can’t escape it
Introduction: I received the following email: Ms. No.: *** Title: *** Corresponding Author: *** All Authors: *** Dear Dr. Gelman, Because of your expertise, I would like to ask your assistance in determining whether the above-mentioned manuscript is appropriate for publication in ***. The abstract is pasted below. . . . My reply: I would rather not review this article. I suggest ***, ***, and *** as reviewers. I think it would be difficult for me to review the manuscript fairly.
2 0.90507144 1314 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-12-More on Uncle Woody
Introduction: Here . See also here . He did Wacky Packs!
3 0.88071704 195 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-09-President Carter
Introduction: This assessment by Tyler Cowen reminded me that, in 1980, I and just about all my friends hated Jimmy Carter. Most of us much preferred him to Reagan but still hated Carter. I wouldn’t associate this with any particular ideological feeling—it’s not that we thought he was too liberal, or too conservative. He just seemed completely ineffectual. I remember feeling at the time that he had no principles, that he’d do anything to get elected. In retrospect, I think of this as an instance of uniform partisan swing: the president was unpopular nationally, and attitudes about him were negative, relatively speaking, among just about every group. My other Carter story comes from a conversation I had a couple years ago with an economist who’s about my age, a man who said that one reason he and his family moved from town A to town B in his metropolitan area was that, in town B, they didn’t feel like they were the only Republicans on their block. Anyway, this guy described himself as a “
4 0.86887813 108 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-24-Sometimes the raw numbers are better than a percentage
Introduction: A NY Times Environment blog entry summarizes an article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that looks into whether there really is a “scientific consensus” that humans are substantially changing the climate. There is. That’s pretty much “dog bites man” as far as news is concerned. But although the results of the study don’t seem noteworthy, I was struck by this paragraph in the blog writeup, which is pretty much a quote of the PNAS article: For example, of the top 50 climate researchers identified by the study (as ranked by the number of papers they had published), only 2 percent fell into the camp of climate dissenters. Of the top 200 researchers, only 2.5 percent fell into the dissenter camp. That is consistent with past work, including opinion polls, suggesting that 97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human-induced climate change. Two percent of the top 50, that’s one person. And 2.5 percent of the top 200, that’s five
5 0.8686884 1861 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-17-Where do theories come from?
Introduction: Lee Sechrest sends along this article by Brian Haig and writes that it “presents what seems to me a useful perspective on much of what scientists/statisticians do and how science works, at least in the fields in which I work.” Here’s Haig’s abstract: A broad theory of scientific method is sketched that has particular relevance for the behavioral sciences. This theory of method assembles a complex of specific strategies and methods that are used in the detection of empirical phenomena and the subsequent construction of explanatory theories. A characterization of the nature of phenomena is given, and the process of their detection is briefly described in terms of a multistage model of data analysis. The construction of explanatory theories is shown to involve their generation through abductive, or explanatory, reasoning, their development through analogical modeling, and their fuller appraisal in terms of judgments of the best of competing explanations. The nature and limits of
6 0.86586034 46 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-21-Careers, one-hit wonders, and an offer of a free book
7 0.8646965 733 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-27-Another silly graph
8 0.86064726 452 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-06-Followup questions
9 0.86013293 2104 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-17-Big bad education bureaucracy does big bad things
10 0.85887784 880 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-30-Annals of spam
11 0.85528111 1681 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-19-Participate in a short survey about the weight of evidence provided by statistics
12 0.85458577 1802 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-14-Detecting predictability in complex ecosystems
13 0.85441554 1202 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-08-Between and within-Krugman correlation
14 0.85235631 1902 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-17-Job opening at new “big data” consulting firm!
15 0.85201502 495 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-31-“Threshold earners” and economic inequality
16 0.8512789 1468 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-24-Multilevel modeling and instrumental variables
17 0.85096467 2022 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-13-You heard it here first: Intense exercise can suppress appetite
19 0.84946167 1905 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-18-There are no fat sprinters
20 0.84828019 1649 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-02-Back when 50 miles was a long way