andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-1654 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Adam Marcus at Retraction Watch reports on a physicist at the University of Toronto who had this unfortunate thing happen to him: This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and first and corresponding author. The article was largely a duplication of a paper that had already appeared in ACS Nano, 4 (2010) 3374–3380, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nn100335g. The first and the corresponding authors (Kramer and Sargent) would like to apologize for this administrative error on their part . . . “Administrative error” . . . I love that! Is that what the robber says when he knocks over a liquor store and gets caught? As Marcus points out, the two papers have different titles and a different order of authors, which makes it less plausible that this was an administrative mistake (as could happen, for example, if a secretary was given a list of journals to submit the paper to, and accidentally submitted it to the second journal on the list without realizing it
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Adam Marcus at Retraction Watch reports on a physicist at the University of Toronto who had this unfortunate thing happen to him: This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and first and corresponding author. [sent-1, score-0.775]
2 The article was largely a duplication of a paper that had already appeared in ACS Nano, 4 (2010) 3374–3380, http://dx. [sent-2, score-0.374]
3 The first and the corresponding authors (Kramer and Sargent) would like to apologize for this administrative error on their part . [sent-6, score-0.879]
4 Is that what the robber says when he knocks over a liquor store and gets caught? [sent-13, score-0.37]
5 Also this amusing bit: Sargent also happens to be a member of the ACS Nano editorial board — and, presumably, was fully in support of an editorial it published earlier this year on the “dangers of self-plagiarism. [sent-15, score-0.728]
6 ” All I can say is, once they nail me for embezzlement and plagiarism, my critics will have lots of fun pointing to blog posts like this one. [sent-16, score-0.368]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('administrative', 0.323), ('nano', 0.317), ('acs', 0.289), ('sargent', 0.272), ('marcus', 0.227), ('editorial', 0.201), ('corresponding', 0.164), ('kramer', 0.144), ('liquor', 0.136), ('knocks', 0.136), ('toronto', 0.136), ('nail', 0.13), ('duplication', 0.13), ('dangers', 0.122), ('retracted', 0.122), ('happen', 0.121), ('titles', 0.119), ('secretary', 0.116), ('list', 0.114), ('accidentally', 0.114), ('authors', 0.107), ('adam', 0.105), ('error', 0.101), ('retraction', 0.101), ('apologize', 0.1), ('unfortunate', 0.1), ('realizing', 0.098), ('store', 0.098), ('watch', 0.093), ('physicist', 0.092), ('request', 0.092), ('already', 0.091), ('critics', 0.088), ('submit', 0.087), ('amusing', 0.086), ('board', 0.085), ('plagiarism', 0.085), ('member', 0.084), ('submitted', 0.084), ('first', 0.084), ('largely', 0.081), ('accepted', 0.08), ('pointing', 0.08), ('presumably', 0.079), ('plausible', 0.074), ('caught', 0.074), ('appeared', 0.072), ('fully', 0.071), ('posts', 0.07), ('mistake', 0.066)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999982 1654 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-04-“Don’t think of it as duplication. Think of it as a single paper in a superposition of two quantum journals.”
Introduction: Adam Marcus at Retraction Watch reports on a physicist at the University of Toronto who had this unfortunate thing happen to him: This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and first and corresponding author. The article was largely a duplication of a paper that had already appeared in ACS Nano, 4 (2010) 3374–3380, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nn100335g. The first and the corresponding authors (Kramer and Sargent) would like to apologize for this administrative error on their part . . . “Administrative error” . . . I love that! Is that what the robber says when he knocks over a liquor store and gets caught? As Marcus points out, the two papers have different titles and a different order of authors, which makes it less plausible that this was an administrative mistake (as could happen, for example, if a secretary was given a list of journals to submit the paper to, and accidentally submitted it to the second journal on the list without realizing it
2 0.12641908 1842 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-05-Cleaning up science
Introduction: David Hogg pointed me to this post by Gary Marcus, reviewing this skeptics’ all-star issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science that features replication culture heroes Jelte Wicherts, Hal Pashler, Arina Bones, E. J. Wagenmakers, Gregory Francis, Hal Pashler, John Ioannidis, and Uri Simonsohn. I agree with pretty much everything Marcus has to say. In addition to Marcus’s suggestions, which might be called cultural or psychological, I also have various statistical ideas that might help move the field forward. Most notably I think we need to go beyond uniform priors and null-hypothesis testing to a more realistic set of models for effects and variation. I’ll discuss more at some other time, but in the meantime I thought I’d share these links. P.S. Marcus updates with a glass-is-half-full take.
3 0.1073729 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 0.10225272 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
5 0.10055465 2269 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-27-Beyond the Valley of the Trolls
Introduction: In a further discussion of the discussion about the discussion of a paper in Administrative Science Quarterly, Thomas Basbøll writes: I [Basbøll] feel “entitled”, if that’s the right word (actually, I’d say I feel privileged), to express my opinions to anyone who wants to listen, and while I think it does say something about an author whether or not they answer a question (where what it says depends very much on the quality of the question), I don’t think the author has any obligation to me to respond immediately. If I succeed in raising doubts about something in the minds of many readers, then that’s obviously something an author should take seriously. The point is that an author has a responsibility to the readership of the paper, not any one critic. I agree that the ultimate audience is the scholarly community (and, beyond that, the general public) and that the critic is just serving as a conduit, the person who poses the Q in the Q-and-A. That said, I get frustrated frust
6 0.098742194 1588 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-23-No one knows what it’s like to be the bad man
7 0.096629024 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
8 0.088761918 1844 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-06-Against optimism about social science
9 0.084836319 1393 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-The reverse-journal-submission system
11 0.083880842 1273 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-20-Proposals for alternative review systems for scientific work
12 0.083080783 1755 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-09-Plaig
13 0.080460764 1928 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-06-How to think about papers published in low-grade journals?
15 0.072734185 2233 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-04-Literal vs. rhetorical
16 0.071733385 1756 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-10-He said he was sorry
17 0.066812813 150 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-16-Gaydar update: Additional research on estimating small fractions of the population
18 0.0666783 1867 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-22-To Throw Away Data: Plagiarism as a Statistical Crime
19 0.064906716 2353 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-30-I posted this as a comment on a sociology blog
20 0.064820431 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.106), (1, -0.046), (2, -0.035), (3, -0.062), (4, -0.016), (5, -0.029), (6, 0.02), (7, -0.074), (8, -0.012), (9, -0.014), (10, 0.064), (11, 0.002), (12, -0.039), (13, 0.017), (14, -0.014), (15, -0.023), (16, 0.005), (17, 0.013), (18, -0.012), (19, 0.0), (20, 0.022), (21, 0.016), (22, 0.026), (23, -0.005), (24, 0.015), (25, -0.007), (26, -0.041), (27, 0.021), (28, -0.012), (29, -0.008), (30, 0.016), (31, 0.005), (32, -0.024), (33, 0.013), (34, 0.003), (35, -0.003), (36, -0.018), (37, -0.032), (38, -0.003), (39, 0.021), (40, -0.017), (41, -0.014), (42, -0.005), (43, -0.002), (44, -0.022), (45, 0.021), (46, 0.012), (47, -0.017), (48, -0.032), (49, 0.004)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96610767 1654 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-04-“Don’t think of it as duplication. Think of it as a single paper in a superposition of two quantum journals.”
Introduction: Adam Marcus at Retraction Watch reports on a physicist at the University of Toronto who had this unfortunate thing happen to him: This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and first and corresponding author. The article was largely a duplication of a paper that had already appeared in ACS Nano, 4 (2010) 3374–3380, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nn100335g. The first and the corresponding authors (Kramer and Sargent) would like to apologize for this administrative error on their part . . . “Administrative error” . . . I love that! Is that what the robber says when he knocks over a liquor store and gets caught? As Marcus points out, the two papers have different titles and a different order of authors, which makes it less plausible that this was an administrative mistake (as could happen, for example, if a secretary was given a list of journals to submit the paper to, and accidentally submitted it to the second journal on the list without realizing it
2 0.86180073 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 0.84038323 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 0.82885671 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!
5 0.82707566 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 0.82356966 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
7 0.82180262 2353 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-30-I posted this as a comment on a sociology blog
8 0.81743872 902 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-12-The importance of style in academic writing
10 0.81161386 1393 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-The reverse-journal-submission system
12 0.80218267 1928 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-06-How to think about papers published in low-grade journals?
13 0.78985828 675 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-22-Arrow’s other theorem
14 0.78889716 1137 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-24-Difficulties in publishing non-replications of implausible findings
15 0.78772342 2233 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-04-Literal vs. rhetorical
16 0.77966475 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
17 0.77859491 371 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-26-Musical chairs in econ journals
18 0.77339697 2095 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-09-Typo in Ghitza and Gelman MRP paper
19 0.77228755 2269 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-27-Beyond the Valley of the Trolls
20 0.76750028 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
topicId topicWeight
[(2, 0.012), (15, 0.103), (16, 0.075), (24, 0.051), (34, 0.027), (42, 0.02), (47, 0.33), (76, 0.012), (81, 0.013), (89, 0.022), (99, 0.224)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.87826693 1654 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-04-“Don’t think of it as duplication. Think of it as a single paper in a superposition of two quantum journals.”
Introduction: Adam Marcus at Retraction Watch reports on a physicist at the University of Toronto who had this unfortunate thing happen to him: This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and first and corresponding author. The article was largely a duplication of a paper that had already appeared in ACS Nano, 4 (2010) 3374–3380, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nn100335g. The first and the corresponding authors (Kramer and Sargent) would like to apologize for this administrative error on their part . . . “Administrative error” . . . I love that! Is that what the robber says when he knocks over a liquor store and gets caught? As Marcus points out, the two papers have different titles and a different order of authors, which makes it less plausible that this was an administrative mistake (as could happen, for example, if a secretary was given a list of journals to submit the paper to, and accidentally submitted it to the second journal on the list without realizing it
2 0.86241972 275 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-14-Data visualization at the American Evaluation Association
Introduction: Stephanie Evergreen writes: Media, web design, and marketing have all created an environment where stakeholders – clients, program participants, funders – all expect high quality graphics and reporting that effectively conveys the valuable insights from evaluation work. Some in statistics and mathematics have used data visualization strategies to support more useful reporting of complex ideas. Global growing interest in improving communications has begun to take root in the evaluation field as well. But as anyone who has sat through a day’s worth of a conference or had to endure a dissertation-worthy evaluation report knows, evaluators still have a long way to go. To support the development of researchers and evaluators, some members of the American Evaluation Association are proposing a new TIG (Topical Interest Group) on Data Visualization and Reporting. If you are a member of AEA (or want to be) and you are interested in joining this TIG, contact Stephanie Evergreen.
3 0.80710423 1055 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-13-Data sharing update
Introduction: Fred Oswald reports that Sian Beilock sent him sufficient amounts of raw data from her research study so allow him to answer his questions about the large effects that were observed. This sort of collegiality is central to the collective scientific enterprise. The bad news is that IRB’s are still getting in the way. Beilock was very helpful but she had to work within the constraints of her IRB, which apparently advised her not to share data—even if de-identified—without getting lots more permissions. Oswald writes: It is a little concerning that the IRB bars the sharing of de-identified data, particularly in light of the specific guidelines of the journal Science, which appears to say that when you submit a study to the journal for publication, you are allowing for the sharing of de-identified data — unless you expressly say otherwise at the point that you submit the paper for consideration. Again, I don’t blame Beilock and Ramirez—they appear to have been as helpful as
4 0.78380978 95 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-17-“Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College”
Introduction: Several years ago, I heard about a project at the Educational Testing Service to identify “strivers”: students from disadvantaged backgrounds who did unexpectedly well on the SAT (the college admissions exam formerly known as the “Scholastic Aptitude Test” but apparently now just “the SAT,” in the same way that Exxon is just “Exxon” and that Harry Truman’s middle name is just “S”), at least 200 points above a predicted score based on demographic and neighborhood information. My ETS colleague and I agreed that this was a silly idea: From a statistical point of view, if student A is expected ahead of time to do better than student B, and then they get identical test scores, then you’d expect student A (the non-”striver”) to do better than student B (the “striver”) later on. Just basic statistics: if a student does much better than expected, then probably some of that improvement is noise. The idea of identifying these “strivers” seemed misguided and not the best use of the SAT.
5 0.77805853 429 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-24-“But you and I don’t learn in isolation either”
Introduction: Indeed.
8 0.74886858 1050 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-10-Presenting at the econ seminar
9 0.7428481 1143 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-29-G+ > Skype
10 0.73784602 2275 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-31-Just gave a talk
11 0.73157561 1261 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-12-The Naval Research Lab
12 0.72863048 2131 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-12-My talk at Leuven, Sat 14 Dec
13 0.70805955 1668 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-11-My talk at the NY data visualization meetup this Monday!
14 0.69404864 2290 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-14-On deck this week
15 0.68836868 1897 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-13-When’s that next gamma-ray blast gonna come, already?
16 0.68377143 716 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-17-Is the internet causing half the rapes in Norway? I wanna see the scatterplot.
17 0.68369907 1273 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-20-Proposals for alternative review systems for scientific work
18 0.68008697 602 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-06-Assumptions vs. conditions
19 0.67930806 2068 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-18-G+ hangout for Bayesian Data Analysis course now! (actually, in 5 minutes)
20 0.67668104 2175 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-18-A course in sample surveys for political science