andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-838 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Hey–there’s a whole blog devoted to retractions of journal articles! It’s pretty amazing. Some of it is your basic faked experiments, and then we know about the recent plagiarism example, also there’s an entire research institute in Germany that’s plagiarism-ridden and a journal called Applied Mathematics Letters that apparently will publish just about anything . I’ll publish in crap journals, but nothing that crappy!
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Hey–there’s a whole blog devoted to retractions of journal articles! [sent-1, score-0.983]
2 Some of it is your basic faked experiments, and then we know about the recent plagiarism example, also there’s an entire research institute in Germany that’s plagiarism-ridden and a journal called Applied Mathematics Letters that apparently will publish just about anything . [sent-3, score-2.18]
3 I’ll publish in crap journals, but nothing that crappy! [sent-4, score-0.647]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('publish', 0.303), ('retractions', 0.298), ('germany', 0.273), ('faked', 0.273), ('devoted', 0.252), ('crappy', 0.238), ('crap', 0.231), ('journal', 0.226), ('letters', 0.209), ('institute', 0.209), ('plagiarism', 0.209), ('mathematics', 0.194), ('apparently', 0.17), ('journals', 0.16), ('entire', 0.16), ('experiments', 0.157), ('hey', 0.154), ('basic', 0.142), ('articles', 0.131), ('whole', 0.129), ('called', 0.126), ('applied', 0.118), ('nothing', 0.113), ('anything', 0.1), ('recent', 0.091), ('pretty', 0.086), ('ll', 0.08), ('blog', 0.078), ('research', 0.069), ('example', 0.059), ('know', 0.056), ('also', 0.046)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 838 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-04-Retraction Watch
Introduction: Hey–there’s a whole blog devoted to retractions of journal articles! It’s pretty amazing. Some of it is your basic faked experiments, and then we know about the recent plagiarism example, also there’s an entire research institute in Germany that’s plagiarism-ridden and a journal called Applied Mathematics Letters that apparently will publish just about anything . I’ll publish in crap journals, but nothing that crappy!
2 0.20798424 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
3 0.18462224 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
Introduction: Stan Liebowitz writes: Have you ever heard of an article being retracted in economics? I know you have only been doing this for a few years but I suspect that the answer is that none or very few are retracted. No economist would ever deceive another. There is virtually no interest in detecting cheating. And what good would that do if there is no form of punishment? I say this because I think I have found a case in one of our top journals but the editor allowed the authors of the original article to write an anonymous referee report defending themselves and used this report to reject my comment even though an independent referee recommended publication. My reply: I wonder how this sort of thing will change in the future as journals become less important. My impression is that, on one side, researchers are increasingly citing NBER reports, Arxiv preprints, and the like; while, from the other direction, journals such as Science and Nature are developing the reputations of being “t
4 0.16915521 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
5 0.15510777 371 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-26-Musical chairs in econ journals
Introduction: Tyler Cowen links to a paper by Bruno Frey on the lack of space for articles in economics journals. Frey writes: To further their careers, [academic economists] are required to publish in A-journals, but for the vast majority this is impossible because there are few slots open in such journals. Such academic competition maybe useful to generate hard work, however, there may be serious negative consequences: the wrong output may be produced in an inefficient way, the wrong people may be selected, and losers may react in a harmful way. According to Frey, the consensus is that there are only five top economics journals–and one of those five is Econometrica, which is so specialized that I’d say that, for most academic economists, there are only four top places they can publish. The difficulty is that demand for these slots outpaces supply: for example, in 2007 there were only 275 articles in all these journals combined (or 224 if you exclude Econometrica), while “a rough estim
6 0.13782124 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
7 0.13691694 2353 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-30-I posted this as a comment on a sociology blog
8 0.13625814 1588 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-23-No one knows what it’s like to be the bad man
9 0.13326247 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
10 0.13278556 1878 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-31-How to fix the tabloids? Toward replicable social science research
11 0.12402951 120 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-30-You can’t put Pandora back in the box
12 0.12259726 1867 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-22-To Throw Away Data: Plagiarism as a Statistical Crime
14 0.11744933 1137 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-24-Difficulties in publishing non-replications of implausible findings
15 0.11437836 2234 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-05-Plagiarism, Arizona style
16 0.11257255 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
17 0.11176929 1254 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-09-In the future, everyone will publish everything.
18 0.1036061 1770 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-19-Retraction watch
19 0.10155039 1774 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-22-Likelihood Ratio ≠ 1 Journal
20 0.10124343 1272 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-20-More proposals to reform the peer-review system
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.103), (1, -0.071), (2, -0.109), (3, -0.098), (4, -0.072), (5, -0.037), (6, -0.001), (7, -0.111), (8, -0.054), (9, 0.016), (10, 0.127), (11, -0.004), (12, -0.042), (13, 0.037), (14, -0.028), (15, -0.043), (16, -0.001), (17, 0.01), (18, -0.006), (19, -0.011), (20, 0.023), (21, 0.022), (22, 0.034), (23, 0.014), (24, 0.039), (25, -0.022), (26, -0.04), (27, -0.0), (28, -0.026), (29, 0.028), (30, 0.042), (31, -0.017), (32, -0.004), (33, 0.059), (34, -0.012), (35, 0.006), (36, -0.021), (37, -0.038), (38, -0.047), (39, 0.054), (40, -0.06), (41, 0.041), (42, -0.007), (43, 0.003), (44, -0.013), (45, 0.01), (46, -0.014), (47, 0.045), (48, -0.019), (49, 0.057)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.98127347 838 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-04-Retraction Watch
Introduction: Hey–there’s a whole blog devoted to retractions of journal articles! It’s pretty amazing. Some of it is your basic faked experiments, and then we know about the recent plagiarism example, also there’s an entire research institute in Germany that’s plagiarism-ridden and a journal called Applied Mathematics Letters that apparently will publish just about anything . I’ll publish in crap journals, but nothing that crappy!
2 0.78987914 883 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-01-Arrow’s theorem update
Introduction: Someone pointed me to this letter to Bruno Frey from the editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives. ( Background here , also more here from Olaf Storbeck.) The journal editor was upset about Frey’s self-plagiarism, and Frey responded with an apology: It was a grave mistake on our part for which we deeply apologize. It should never have happened. This is deplorable. . . . Please be assured that we take all precautions and measures that this unfortunate event does not happen again, with any journal. What I wonder is: How “deplorable” does Frey really think this is? You don’t publish a paper in 5 different places by accident! Is Frey saying that he knew this was deplorable back then and he did it anyway, based on calculation balancing the gains from multiple publications vs. the potential losses if he got caught? Or is he saying that the conduct is deplorable, but he didn’t realize it was deplorable when he did it? My guess is that Frey does not actually think the r
3 0.76480305 1321 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-15-A statistical research project: Weeding out the fraudulent citations
Introduction: John Mashey points me to a blog post by Phil Davis on “the emergence of a citation cartel.” Davis tells the story: Cell Transplantation is a medical journal published by the Cognizant Communication Corporation of Putnam Valley, New York. In recent years, its impact factor has been growing rapidly. In 2006, it was 3.482 [I think he means "3.5"---ed.]. In 2010, it had almost doubled to 6.204. When you look at which journals cite Cell Transplantation, two journals stand out noticeably: the Medical Science Monitor, and The Scientific World Journal. According to the JCR, neither of these journals cited Cell Transplantation until 2010. Then, in 2010, a review article was published in the Medical Science Monitor citing 490 articles, 445 of which were to papers published in Cell Transplantation. All 445 citations pointed to papers published in 2008 or 2009 — the citation window from which the journal’s 2010 impact factor was derived. Of the remaining 45 citations, 44 cited the Me
4 0.76361942 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
5 0.76204187 1118 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-14-A model rejection letter
Introduction: Howard Wainer sends in this rejection letter from Sir David Brewster of The Edinburgh Journal of Science to Charles Babbage: It is no inconsiderable degree of reluctance that I decline the offer of any Paper from you. I think, however, you will upon reconsideration of the subject be of the opinion that I have no other alternative. The subjects you propose for a series of Mathematical and Metaphysical Essays are so profound, that there is perhaps not a single subscriber to our Journal who could follow them. Nowadays, he could just submit to Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews . . .
8 0.75304729 834 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-01-I owe it all to the haters
9 0.75145966 1928 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-06-How to think about papers published in low-grade journals?
11 0.74088538 1137 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-24-Difficulties in publishing non-replications of implausible findings
12 0.73659569 762 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-13-How should journals handle replication studies?
13 0.7361536 1122 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-16-“Groundbreaking or Definitive? Journals Need to Pick One”
14 0.73479563 371 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-26-Musical chairs in econ journals
15 0.73452437 2278 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-01-Association for Psychological Science announces a new journal
16 0.73315054 902 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-12-The importance of style in academic writing
17 0.73033881 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
18 0.7247678 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
19 0.72429538 2353 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-30-I posted this as a comment on a sociology blog
topicId topicWeight
[(4, 0.046), (14, 0.089), (16, 0.193), (18, 0.046), (21, 0.036), (24, 0.039), (96, 0.036), (98, 0.036), (99, 0.332)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.94429296 1022 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-21-Progress for the Poor
Introduction: Lane Kenworthy writes : The book is full of graphs that support the above claims. One thing I like about Kenworthy’s approach is that he performs a separate analysis to examine each of his hypotheses. A lot of social scientists seem to think that the ideal analysis will conclude with a big regression where each coefficient tells a story and you can address all your hypotheses by looking at which predictors and interactions have statistically significant coefficients. Really, though, I think you need a separate analysis for each causal question (see chapters 9 and 10 of my book with Jennifer, follow this link ). Kenworthy’s overall recommendation is to increase transfer payments to low-income families and to increase overall government spending on social services, and to fund this through general tax increases. What will it take for this to happen? After a review of the evidence from economic trends and opinion polls, Kenworthy writes, “Americans are potentially recepti
2 0.94247854 1495 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-13-Win $5000 in the Economist’s data visualization competition
Introduction: Michael Nelson points me to this . OK, $5,000 isn’t a lot of money (I’m not expecting Niall Ferguson in the competition), but I’m still glad to see this, given that the Economist is known for its excellent graphics.
Introduction: Tyler Cowen discusses his and Bryan Caplan’s reaction to that notorious book by Amy Chua, the Yale law professor who boasts of screaming at her children, calling them “garbage,” not letting them go to the bathroom when they were studying piano, etc. Caplan thinks Chua is deluded (in the sense of not being aware of research showing minimal effects of parenting on children’s intelligence and personality), foolish (in writing a book and making recommendations without trying to lean about the abundant research on child-rearing), and cruel. Cowen takes a middle view in that he doesn’t subscribe to Chua’s parenting strategies but he does think that his friends’ kids will do well (and partly because of his friends’ parenting styles, not just from their genes). Do you view yourself as special? I have a somewhat different take on the matter, an idea that’s been stewing in my mind for awhile, ever since I heard about the Wall Street Journal article that started this all. My story is
4 0.94044793 321 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-05-Racism!
Introduction: Last night I spoke at the Columbia Club of New York, along with some of my political science colleagues, in a panel about politics, the economy, and the forthcoming election. The discussion was fine . . . until one guy in the audience accused us of bias based on what he imputed as our ethnicity. One of the panelists replied by asking the questioner what of all the things we had said was biased, and the questioner couldn’t actually supply any examples. It makes sense that the questioner couldn’t come up with a single example of bias on our part, considering that we were actually presenting facts . At some level, the questioner’s imputation of our ethnicity and accusation of bias isn’t so horrible. When talking with my friends, I engage in casual ethnic stereotyping all the time–hey, it’s a free country!–and one can certainly make the statistical argument that you can guess people’s ethnicities from their names, appearance, and speech patterns, and in turn you can infer a lot
5 0.93794286 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 0.93643343 159 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-23-Popular governor, small state
7 0.93485057 2197 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-04-Peabody here.
9 0.93255198 1712 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-07-Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics (with all the discussions!)
10 0.93228287 960 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-15-The bias-variance tradeoff
11 0.93182999 1168 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-14-The tabloids strike again
12 0.93062079 54 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-27-Hype about conditional probability puzzles
13 0.93035913 722 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-20-Why no Wegmania?
14 0.92822313 2066 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-17-G+ hangout for test run of BDA course
15 0.92753559 348 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-17-Joanne Gowa scooped me by 22 years in my criticism of Axelrod’s Evolution of Cooperation
17 0.92588973 1156 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-06-Bayesian model-building by pure thought: Some principles and examples
18 0.92551541 2280 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-03-As the boldest experiment in journalism history, you admit you made a mistake
19 0.92509198 609 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-13-Coauthorship norms
20 0.92146719 377 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-28-The incoming moderate Republican congressmembers