andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2012 andrew_gelman_stats-2012-1429 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining

1429 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-26-Our broken scholarly publishing system


meta infos for this blog

Source: html

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).


Summary: the most important sentenses genereted by tfidf model

sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore

1 I get about 10 requests to referee journal articles each week . [sent-1, score-0.959]

2 At this point, even the saying No part is getting tiring. [sent-2, score-0.361]


similar blogs computed by tfidf model

tfidf for this blog:

wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)

[('kriegeskorte', 0.317), ('hyped', 0.317), ('devote', 0.277), ('review', 0.261), ('requests', 0.255), ('referee', 0.252), ('corrected', 0.243), ('inherent', 0.23), ('reviewing', 0.222), ('efforts', 0.189), ('importance', 0.175), ('week', 0.158), ('quality', 0.158), ('prefer', 0.143), ('available', 0.142), ('open', 0.138), ('system', 0.133), ('articles', 0.131), ('worth', 0.129), ('whatever', 0.126), ('papers', 0.12), ('either', 0.116), ('journal', 0.113), ('saying', 0.107), ('getting', 0.106), ('write', 0.096), ('part', 0.095), ('read', 0.091), ('need', 0.089), ('paper', 0.073), ('point', 0.064), ('ve', 0.06), ('much', 0.054), ('even', 0.053), ('get', 0.05), ('think', 0.038)]

similar blogs list:

simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle

same-blog 1 1.0 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).

2 0.16652854 1272 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-20-More proposals to reform the peer-review system

Introduction: Chris Said points us to two proposals to fix the system for reviewing scientific papers. Both the proposals are focused on biological research. Said writes : The growing problems with scientific research are by now well known: Many results in the top journals are cherry picked, methodological weaknesses and other important caveats are often swept under the rug, and a large fraction of findings cannot be replicated. In some rare cases, there is even outright fraud. This waste of resources is unfair to the general public that pays for most of the research. . . . Scientists have known about these problems for decades, and there have been several well-intentioned efforts to fix them. The Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis (JASNH) is specifically dedicated to null results. . . . Simmons and colleagues (2011) have proposed lists of regulations for other journals to enforce, including minimum sample sizes and requirements for the disclosure of all variables and

3 0.15005057 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals

Introduction: I’m postponing today’s scheduled post (“Empirical implications of Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models”) to continue the lively discussion from yesterday, What if I were to stop publishing in journals? . An example: my papers with Basbøll Thomas Basbøll and I got into a long discussion on our blogs about business school professor Karl Weick and other cases of plagiarism copying text without attribution. We felt it useful to take our ideas to the next level and write them up as a manuscript, which ended up being logical to split into two papers. At that point I put some effort into getting these papers published, which I eventually did: To throw away data: Plagiarism as a statistical crime went into American Scientist and When do stories work? Evidence and illustration in the social sciences will appear in Sociological Methods and Research. The second paper, in particular, took some effort to place; I got some advice from colleagues in sociology as to where

4 0.13856024 348 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-17-Joanne Gowa scooped me by 22 years in my criticism of Axelrod’s Evolution of Cooperation

Introduction: See page 179 here for Gowa’s review from 1986. And here’s my version (from 2008).

5 0.12278408 2006 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-03-Evaluating evidence from published research

Introduction: Following up on my entry the other day on post-publication peer review, Dan Kahan writes: You give me credit, I think, for merely participating in what I think is a systemic effect in the practice of empirical inquiry that conduces to quality control & hence the advance of knowledge by such means (likely the title conveys that!). I’d say: (a) by far the greatest weakness in the “publication regime” in social sciences today is the systematic disregard for basic principles of valid causal inference, a deficiency either in comprehension or craft that is at the root of scholars’ resort to (and journals’ tolerance for) invalid samples, the employment of designs that don’t generate observations more consistent with a hypothesis than with myriad rival ones, and the resort to deficient statistical modes of analysis that treat detection of “statististically significant difference” rather than “practical corroboration of practical meaningful effect” as the goal of such analysis (especial

6 0.12154069 1928 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-06-How to think about papers published in low-grade journals?

7 0.11923105 836 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-03-Another plagiarism mystery

8 0.11890633 834 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-01-I owe it all to the haters

9 0.10799956 172 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-30-Why don’t we have peer reviewing for oral presentations?

10 0.10718633 2239 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-09-Reviewing the peer review process?

11 0.10450397 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?

12 0.1043696 120 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-30-You can’t put Pandora back in the box

13 0.10352227 601 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-05-Against double-blind reviewing: Political science and statistics are not like biology and physics

14 0.098825403 1865 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-20-What happened that the journal Psychological Science published a paper with no identifiable strengths?

15 0.097261719 2353 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-30-I posted this as a comment on a sociology blog

16 0.094155565 2191 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-29-“Questioning The Lancet, PLOS, And Other Surveys On Iraqi Deaths, An Interview With Univ. of London Professor Michael Spagat”

17 0.088670254 1163 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-12-Meta-analysis, game theory, and incentives to do replicable research

18 0.0882065 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox

19 0.086660452 1683 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-19-“Confirmation, on the other hand, is not sexy”

20 0.086559176 1502 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-19-Scalability in education


similar blogs computed by lsi model

lsi for this blog:

topicId topicWeight

[(0, 0.111), (1, -0.052), (2, -0.071), (3, -0.06), (4, -0.041), (5, -0.036), (6, 0.028), (7, -0.09), (8, -0.01), (9, -0.011), (10, 0.111), (11, -0.002), (12, -0.034), (13, 0.019), (14, 0.037), (15, -0.048), (16, 0.012), (17, 0.015), (18, -0.02), (19, 0.012), (20, 0.018), (21, 0.029), (22, 0.058), (23, 0.005), (24, 0.001), (25, 0.019), (26, 0.029), (27, 0.005), (28, 0.001), (29, 0.027), (30, -0.065), (31, -0.031), (32, -0.002), (33, 0.023), (34, -0.008), (35, -0.028), (36, 0.013), (37, 0.008), (38, 0.018), (39, -0.002), (40, 0.038), (41, 0.012), (42, -0.062), (43, -0.003), (44, 0.018), (45, 0.012), (46, 0.007), (47, -0.064), (48, 0.005), (49, 0.014)]

similar blogs list:

simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle

same-blog 1 0.98110455 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).

2 0.80663693 2233 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-04-Literal vs. rhetorical

Introduction: Thomas Basbøll pointed me to a discussion on the orgtheory blog in which Jerry Davis, the editor of a journal of business management argued that it is difficult for academic researchers to communicate with the public because “the public prefers Cheetos to a healthy salad” and when serious papers are discussed on the internet, “everyone is a methodologist.” The discussion heated up when an actual methodologist, Steve Morgan, joined in to argue that the salad in question was not so healthy and that the much-derided internet commenters made some valuable points. The final twist was that one of the orgtheory bloggers deleted a comment and then closed the thread entirely when the discussion got too conflictual. In a few days I’ll return to the meta-topic of the discussion, but right now I want to focus on one thing Davis wrote, a particular statement that illustrates to me the gap between the rhetorical and the literal, the way in which a statement can sound good but make no sense. He

3 0.80016464 1915 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-Huh?

Introduction: I received the following bizarre email: Apr 26, 2013 Dear Andrew Gelman You are receiving this notice because you have published a paper with the American Journal of Public Health within the last few years. Currently, content on the Journal is closed access for the first 2 years after publication, and then freely accessible thereafter. On June 1, 2013, the Journal will be extending its closed-access window from 2 years to 10 years. Extending this window will close public access to your article via the Journal web portal, but public access will still be available via the National Institutes of Health PubMedCentral web portal. If you would like to make your article available to the public for free on the Journal web portal, we are extending this limited time offer of open access at a steeply discounted rate of $1,000 per article. If interested in purchasing this access, please contact Brian Selzer, Publications Editor, at brian.selzer@apha.org Additionally, you may purchas

4 0.79926771 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

5 0.79487473 834 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-01-I owe it all to the haters

Introduction: Sometimes when I submit an article to a journal it is accepted right away or with minor alterations. But many of my favorite articles were rejected or had to go through an exhausting series of revisions. For example, this influential article had a very hostile referee and we had to seriously push the journal editor to accept it. This one was rejected by one or two journals before finally appearing with discussion. This paper was rejected by the American Political Science Review with no chance of revision and we had to publish it in the British Journal of Political Science, which was a bit odd given that the article was 100% about American politics. And when I submitted this instant classic (actually at the invitation of the editor), the referees found it to be trivial, and the editor did me the favor of publishing it but only by officially labeling it as a discussion of another article that appeared in the same issue. Some of my most influential papers were accepted right

6 0.79325044 1393 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-The reverse-journal-submission system

7 0.78993219 2239 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-09-Reviewing the peer review process?

8 0.78496206 1321 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-15-A statistical research project: Weeding out the fraudulent citations

9 0.77437317 58 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-29-Stupid legal crap

10 0.76864606 2353 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-30-I posted this as a comment on a sociology blog

11 0.76569194 1916 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-The weirdest thing about the AJPH story

12 0.75586563 1865 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-20-What happened that the journal Psychological Science published a paper with no identifiable strengths?

13 0.75558168 1122 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-16-“Groundbreaking or Definitive? Journals Need to Pick One”

14 0.75061923 172 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-30-Why don’t we have peer reviewing for oral presentations?

15 0.74764276 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?

16 0.73764801 2095 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-09-Typo in Ghitza and Gelman MRP paper

17 0.72273582 883 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-01-Arrow’s theorem update

18 0.7172786 1118 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-14-A model rejection letter

19 0.71490377 1137 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-24-Difficulties in publishing non-replications of implausible findings

20 0.71128076 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals


similar blogs computed by lda model

lda for this blog:

topicId topicWeight

[(4, 0.037), (15, 0.061), (24, 0.201), (30, 0.25), (99, 0.301)]

similar blogs list:

simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle

1 0.94592559 1188 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-28-Reference on longitudinal models?

Introduction: Antonio Ramos writes: The book with Hill has very little on longitudinal models. So do you recommended any reference to complement your book on covariance structures typical from these models, such as AR(1), Antedependence, Factor Analytic, etc? I am very much interest in BUGS code for these basic models as well as how to extend them to more complex situations. My reply: There is a book by Banerjee, Carlin, and Gelfand on Bayesian space-time models. Beyond that, I think there is good work in psychometrics on covaraince structures but I don’t know the literature.

2 0.93221939 41 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-19-Updated R code and data for ARM

Introduction: Patricia and I have cleaned up some of the R and Bugs code and collected the data for almost all the examples in ARM. See here for links to zip files with the code and data.

3 0.91733032 179 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-03-An Olympic size swimming pool full of lithium water

Introduction: As part of his continuing plan to sap etc etc., Aleks pointed me to an article by Max Miller reporting on a recommendation from Jacob Appel: Adding trace amounts of lithium to the drinking water could limit suicides. . . . Communities with higher than average amounts of lithium in their drinking water had significantly lower suicide rates than communities with lower levels. Regions of Texas with lower lithium concentrations had an average suicide rate of 14.2 per 100,000 people, whereas those areas with naturally higher lithium levels had a dramatically lower suicide rate of 8.7 per 100,000. The highest levels in Texas (150 micrograms of lithium per liter of water) are only a thousandth of the minimum pharmaceutical dose, and have no known deleterious effects. I don’t know anything about this and am offering no judgment on it; I’m just passing it on. The research studies are here and here . I am skeptical, though, about this part of the argument: We are not talking a

4 0.91610986 1259 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-11-How things sound to us, versus how they sound to others

Introduction: Hykel Hosni noticed this bit from the Lindley Prize page of the Society for Bayesan Analysis: Lindley became a great missionary for the Bayesian gospel. The atmosphere of the Bayesian revival is captured in a comment by Rivett on Lindley’s move to University College London and the premier chair of statistics in Britain: “it was as though a Jehovah’s Witness had been elected Pope.” From my perspective, this was amusing (if commonplace): a group of rationalists jocularly characterizing themselves as religious fanatics. And some of this is in response to intense opposition from outsiders (see the Background section here ). That’s my view. I’m an insider, a statistician who’s heard all jokes about religious Bayesians, from Bayesian and non-Bayesian statisticians alike. But Hosni is an outsider, and here’s how he sees the above-quoted paragraph: Research, however, is not a matter of faith but a matter of arguments, which should always be evaluated with the utmost intellec

same-blog 5 0.91566104 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 0.9149493 1416 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-14-Ripping off a ripoff

7 0.90992755 1195 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-04-Multiple comparisons dispute in the tabloids

8 0.89682025 1623 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-14-GiveWell charity recommendations

9 0.8946265 1768 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-18-Mertz’s reply to Unz’s response to Mertz’s comments on Unz’s article

10 0.88916677 1265 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-15-Progress in U.S. education; also, a discussion of what it takes to hit the op-ed pages

11 0.886136 1831 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-The Great Race

12 0.88230634 412 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-13-Time to apply for the hackNY summer fellows program

13 0.86648619 1497 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-15-Our blog makes connections!

14 0.85545081 593 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-27-Heat map

15 0.84305632 852 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-13-Checking your model using fake data

16 0.8329733 109 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-25-Classics of statistics

17 0.83031094 346 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-16-Mandelbrot and Akaike: from taxonomy to smooth runways (pioneering work in fractals and self-similarity)

18 0.8284657 2073 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-22-Ivy Jew update

19 0.82789558 1178 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-21-How many data points do you really have?

20 0.82193202 1936 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-13-Economic policy does not occur in a political vacuum