andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-883 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
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
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Someone pointed me to this letter to Bruno Frey from the editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives. [sent-1, score-0.098]
2 ) 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. [sent-3, score-0.435]
3 Please be assured that we take all precautions and measures that this unfortunate event does not happen again, with any journal. [sent-9, score-0.225]
4 You don’t publish a paper in 5 different places by accident! [sent-11, score-0.131]
5 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. [sent-12, score-0.677]
6 Or is he saying that the conduct is deplorable, but he didn’t realize it was deplorable when he did it? [sent-14, score-0.583]
7 My guess is that Frey does not actually think the repeated publication was deplorable; he’s just saying this because he’s broken the rules and he has to apologize. [sent-15, score-0.483]
8 Just like if I’m stopped by a cop for running a red light, I’d apologize till my lips turned blue even if I didn’t think I did anything wrong. [sent-16, score-0.285]
9 There’s nothing really wrong with publishing the same material in different places. [sent-18, score-0.164]
10 Five journals represent five different audiences, and if it’s good work, why not try to reach more people? [sent-19, score-0.375]
11 The only trouble is that nowadays nobody reads journal articles anyway. [sent-20, score-0.178]
12 Journal publication is little more than a stamp of approval. [sent-21, score-0.152]
13 And what’s the point of getting five stamps when one will do? [sent-22, score-0.263]
14 It’s like doping in the Tour de France: if you don’t bend the rules, you’ll fall behind. [sent-25, score-0.172]
15 It looks like Frey and his collaborators broke the rules, got caught, and are paying the price. [sent-27, score-0.186]
16 paper is ok, worth publishing once, perhaps, but it’s not really good enough to be published in five different places. [sent-30, score-0.397]
17 The econ journals should reserve this treatment for the very best research. [sent-31, score-0.199]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('frey', 0.59), ('deplorable', 0.438), ('five', 0.175), ('rules', 0.133), ('journals', 0.127), ('journal', 0.119), ('editor', 0.098), ('caught', 0.096), ('precautions', 0.093), ('cop', 0.093), ('diversion', 0.093), ('grave', 0.093), ('olaf', 0.093), ('publishing', 0.091), ('stamps', 0.088), ('balancing', 0.088), ('doping', 0.088), ('saying', 0.085), ('bend', 0.084), ('publication', 0.082), ('titanic', 0.081), ('tour', 0.078), ('different', 0.073), ('broke', 0.073), ('apology', 0.073), ('seemed', 0.073), ('reserve', 0.072), ('stamp', 0.07), ('accident', 0.069), ('till', 0.069), ('losses', 0.068), ('assured', 0.068), ('france', 0.068), ('written', 0.068), ('bruno', 0.066), ('gains', 0.066), ('upset', 0.065), ('broken', 0.064), ('apologize', 0.064), ('unfortunate', 0.064), ('audiences', 0.063), ('conduct', 0.06), ('repeated', 0.06), ('deeply', 0.06), ('guess', 0.059), ('reads', 0.059), ('stopped', 0.059), ('paper', 0.058), ('collaborators', 0.058), ('paying', 0.055)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 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
Introduction: As regular readers of this blog are aware, I am fascinated by academic and scientific cheating and the excuses people give for it. Bruno Frey and colleagues published a single article (with only minor variants) in five different major journals, and these articles did not cite each other. And there have been several other cases of his self-plagiarism (see this review from Olaf Storbeck). I do not mind the general practice of repeating oneself for different audiences—in the social sciences, we call this Arrow’s Theorem —but in this case Frey seems to have gone a bit too far. Blogger Economic Logic has looked into this and concluded that this sort of common practice is standard in “the context of the German(-speaking) academic environment,” and what sets Frey apart is not his self-plagiarism or even his brazenness but rather his practice of doing it in high-visibility journals. Economic Logic writes that “[Frey's] contribution is pedagogical, he found a good and interesting
3 0.31503755 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
4 0.26591155 902 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-12-The importance of style in academic writing
Introduction: In my comments on academic cheating , I briefly discussed the question of how some of these papers could’ve been published in the first place, given that they tend to be of low quality. (It’s rare that people plagiarize the good stuff, and, when they do—for example when a senior scholar takes credit for a junior researcher’s contributions without giving proper credit—there’s not always a paper trail, and there can be legitimate differences of opinion about the relative contributions of the participants.) Anyway, to get back to the cases at hand: how did these rulebreakers get published in the first place? The question here is not how did they get away with cheating but how is it that top journals were publishing mediocre research? In the case of the profs who falsified data (Diederik Stapel) or did not follow scientific protocol (Mark Hauser), the answer is clear: By cheating, they were able to get the sort of too-good-to-be-true results which, if they were true, would be
5 0.25439543 675 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-22-Arrow’s other theorem
Introduction: I received the following email from someone who’d like to remain anonymous: Lately I [the anonymous correspondent] witnessed that Bruno Frey has published two articles in two well known referreed journals on the Titanic disaster that try to explain survival rates of passenger on board. The articles were published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives and Rationality & Society . While looking up the name of the second journal where I stumbled across the article I even saw that they put the message in a third journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America . To say it in Sopranos like style – with all due respect, I know Bruno Frey from conferences, I really appreciate his take on economics as a social science and he has really published more interesting stuff that most economists ever will. But putting the same message into three journals gives me headaches for at least two reasons: 1) When building a track record and scientific rep
6 0.24204554 2055 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-08-A Bayesian approach for peer-review panels? and a speculation about Bruno Frey
7 0.22421056 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
8 0.19483894 1393 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-The reverse-journal-submission system
10 0.14851642 1588 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-23-No one knows what it’s like to be the bad man
11 0.13272932 945 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-06-W’man < W’pedia, again
12 0.13158524 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
13 0.12181899 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
14 0.11538525 1928 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-06-How to think about papers published in low-grade journals?
15 0.10251769 2353 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-30-I posted this as a comment on a sociology blog
16 0.092333317 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
17 0.085294411 2233 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-04-Literal vs. rhetorical
18 0.085111782 2269 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-27-Beyond the Valley of the Trolls
19 0.084937364 746 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-05-An unexpected benefit of Arrow’s other theorem
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.135), (1, -0.08), (2, -0.078), (3, -0.086), (4, -0.072), (5, -0.062), (6, 0.051), (7, -0.116), (8, -0.014), (9, 0.002), (10, 0.13), (11, -0.0), (12, -0.072), (13, 0.014), (14, -0.013), (15, -0.077), (16, 0.036), (17, -0.002), (18, -0.004), (19, -0.015), (20, 0.008), (21, 0.026), (22, 0.044), (23, -0.013), (24, -0.003), (25, -0.023), (26, -0.069), (27, -0.021), (28, -0.016), (29, 0.0), (30, 0.041), (31, -0.017), (32, 0.007), (33, 0.002), (34, -0.006), (35, -0.008), (36, 0.008), (37, 0.022), (38, -0.038), (39, 0.08), (40, -0.025), (41, -0.01), (42, -0.006), (43, -0.015), (44, -0.04), (45, 0.012), (46, 0.072), (47, -0.02), (48, -0.002), (49, 0.019)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96689492 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
2 0.89104831 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
3 0.88818341 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
Introduction: The other day we discussed that paper on ovulation and voting (you may recall that the authors reported a scattered bunch of comparisons, significance tests, and p-values, and I recommended that they would’ve done better to simply report complete summaries of their data, so that readers could see the comparisons of interest in full context), and I was thinking a bit more about why I was so bothered that it was published in Psychological Science, which I’d thought of as a serious research journal. My concern isn’t just that that the paper is bad—after all, lots of bad papers get published—but rather that it had nothing really going for it, except that it was headline bait. It was a survey done on Mechanical Turk, that’s it. No clever design, no clever questions, no care in dealing with nonresponse problems, no innovative data analysis, no nothing. The paper had nothing to offer, except that it had no obvious flaws. Psychology is a huge field full of brilliant researchers.
5 0.87373894 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 0.87226826 902 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-12-The importance of style in academic writing
7 0.84756792 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
8 0.84457928 834 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-01-I owe it all to the haters
9 0.83200705 675 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-22-Arrow’s other theorem
11 0.81772345 1321 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-15-A statistical research project: Weeding out the fraudulent citations
12 0.80727023 838 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-04-Retraction Watch
13 0.80221027 1137 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-24-Difficulties in publishing non-replications of implausible findings
14 0.78458172 2233 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-04-Literal vs. rhetorical
15 0.7844277 2353 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-30-I posted this as a comment on a sociology blog
16 0.76512945 1118 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-14-A model rejection letter
17 0.75494134 1122 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-16-“Groundbreaking or Definitive? Journals Need to Pick One”
18 0.75452447 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
19 0.75353175 2055 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-08-A Bayesian approach for peer-review panels? and a speculation about Bruno Frey
20 0.75271112 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
topicId topicWeight
[(14, 0.011), (15, 0.116), (16, 0.066), (21, 0.04), (24, 0.133), (36, 0.195), (41, 0.02), (45, 0.016), (84, 0.012), (86, 0.014), (89, 0.05), (99, 0.171)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.89706242 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
2 0.88800204 1797 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-10-“Proposition and experiment”
Introduction: Anna Lena Phillips writes : I. Many people will not, of their own accord, look at a poem. II. Millions of people will, of their own accord, spend lots and lots of time looking at photographs of cats. III. Therefore, earlier this year, I concluded that the best strategy for increasing the number of viewers for poems would be to print them on top of photographs of cats. IV. I happen to like looking at both poems and cats. V. So this is, for me, a win-win situation. VI. Fortunately, my own cat is a patient model, and (if I am to be believed) quite photogenic. VII. The aforementioned cat is Tisko Tansi, small hero. VII. Thus I present to you (albeit in digital rather than physical form) an Endearments broadside, featuring a poem that originally appeared in BlazeVOX spring 2011. VIII. If you want to share a copy of this image, please ask first. If you want a real copy, you can ask about that too. She follows up with an image of a cat, on which is superimposed a short
3 0.8869189 2242 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-10-Stan Model of the Week: PK Calculation of IV and Oral Dosing
Introduction: [Update: Revised given comments from Wingfeet, Andrew and germo. Thanks! I'd mistakenly translated the dlnorm priors in the first version --- amazing what a difference the priors make. I also escaped the less-than and greater-than signs in the constraints in the model so they're visible. I also updated to match the thin=2 output of JAGS.] We’re going to be starting a Stan “model of the P” (for some time period P) column, so I thought I’d kick things off with one of my own. I’ve been following the Wingvoet blog , the author of which is identified only by the Blogger handle Wingfeet ; a couple of days ago this lovely post came out: PK calculation of IV and oral dosing in JAGS Wingfeet’s post implemented an answer to question 6 from chapter 6 of problem from Rowland and Tozer’s 2010 book, Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics , Fourth edition, Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. So in the grand tradition of using this blog to procrastinate, I thought I’d t
4 0.88335669 1476 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-30-Stan is fast
Introduction: 10,000 iterations for 4 chains on the (precompiled) efficiently-parameterized 8-schools model: > date () [1] "Thu Aug 30 22:12:53 2012" > fit3 <- stan (fit=fit2, data = schools_dat, iter = 1e4, n_chains = 4) SAMPLING FOR MODEL 'anon_model' NOW (CHAIN 1). Iteration: 10000 / 10000 [100%] (Sampling) SAMPLING FOR MODEL 'anon_model' NOW (CHAIN 2). Iteration: 10000 / 10000 [100%] (Sampling) SAMPLING FOR MODEL 'anon_model' NOW (CHAIN 3). Iteration: 10000 / 10000 [100%] (Sampling) SAMPLING FOR MODEL 'anon_model' NOW (CHAIN 4). Iteration: 10000 / 10000 [100%] (Sampling) > date () [1] "Thu Aug 30 22:12:55 2012" > print (fit3) Inference for Stan model: anon_model. 4 chains: each with iter=10000; warmup=5000; thin=1; 10000 iterations saved. mean se_mean sd 2.5% 25% 50% 75% 97.5% n_eff Rhat mu 8.0 0.1 5.1 -2.0 4.7 8.0 11.3 18.4 4032 1 tau 6.7 0.1 5.6 0.3 2.5 5.4 9.3 21.2 2958 1 eta[1] 0.4 0.0 0.9 -1.5 -0
5 0.87157118 176 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-02-Information is good
Introduction: Washington Post and Slate reporter Anne Applebaum wrote a dismissive column about Wikileaks, saying that they “offer nothing more than raw data.” Applebaum argues that “The notion that the Internet can replace traditional news-gathering has just been revealed to be a myth. . . . without more journalism, more investigation, more work, these documents just don’t matter that much.” Fine. But don’t undervalue the role of mere data! The usual story is that we don’t get to see the raw data underlying newspaper stories. Wikileaks and other crowdsourced data can be extremely useful, whether or not they replace “traditional news-gathering.”
6 0.84654343 370 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-25-Who gets wedding announcements in the Times?
7 0.84650087 1478 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-31-Watercolor regression
8 0.83434874 551 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-02-Obama and Reagan, sitting in a tree, etc.
11 0.79585189 101 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-20-“People with an itch to scratch”
12 0.78953248 1217 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-17-NSF program “to support analytic and methodological research in support of its surveys”
13 0.7821821 1847 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-08-Of parsing and chess
14 0.78065759 1470 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-26-Graphs showing regression uncertainty: the code!
15 0.7738781 2105 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-18-What’s my Kasparov number?
16 0.7624948 945 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-06-W’man < W’pedia, again
17 0.7621665 1851 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-11-Actually, I have no problem with this graph
18 0.75887781 2248 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-15-Problematic interpretations of confidence intervals
19 0.75728935 1800 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-12-Too tired to mock
20 0.75642627 902 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-12-The importance of style in academic writing