andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-1700 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: I had a submission a couple years ago that was rejected by a journal. One of the reviewers began with the following snotty aside: In this manuscript Gelman and Shalizi (there’s no anonymity here; this thing has been floating around the web for some time) . . . Actually, we posted it on the same day we submitted it to the journal. But double-blindness allowed the reviewer to act as if we had done something wrong! And, even if it had been “floating around the web for some time,” that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps it just meant that the article had previously been rejected by a bad-attitude reviewer!
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 I had a submission a couple years ago that was rejected by a journal. [sent-1, score-0.761]
2 One of the reviewers began with the following snotty aside: In this manuscript Gelman and Shalizi (there’s no anonymity here; this thing has been floating around the web for some time) . [sent-2, score-1.891]
3 Actually, we posted it on the same day we submitted it to the journal. [sent-5, score-0.356]
4 But double-blindness allowed the reviewer to act as if we had done something wrong! [sent-6, score-0.8]
5 And, even if it had been “floating around the web for some time,” that’s not necessarily a bad thing. [sent-7, score-0.643]
6 Perhaps it just meant that the article had previously been rejected by a bad-attitude reviewer! [sent-8, score-0.688]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('reviewer', 0.388), ('floating', 0.372), ('rejected', 0.342), ('snotty', 0.263), ('web', 0.252), ('anonymity', 0.229), ('submission', 0.197), ('manuscript', 0.18), ('shalizi', 0.163), ('began', 0.16), ('previously', 0.159), ('reviewers', 0.157), ('submitted', 0.154), ('around', 0.15), ('allowed', 0.144), ('act', 0.137), ('meant', 0.136), ('necessarily', 0.123), ('aside', 0.123), ('gelman', 0.116), ('posted', 0.115), ('couple', 0.09), ('day', 0.087), ('time', 0.086), ('wrong', 0.082), ('done', 0.08), ('bad', 0.078), ('ago', 0.075), ('following', 0.069), ('perhaps', 0.066), ('thing', 0.059), ('actually', 0.057), ('years', 0.057), ('article', 0.051), ('something', 0.051), ('even', 0.04), ('one', 0.026)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1700 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-31-Snotty reviewers
Introduction: I had a submission a couple years ago that was rejected by a journal. One of the reviewers began with the following snotty aside: In this manuscript Gelman and Shalizi (there’s no anonymity here; this thing has been floating around the web for some time) . . . Actually, we posted it on the same day we submitted it to the journal. But double-blindness allowed the reviewer to act as if we had done something wrong! And, even if it had been “floating around the web for some time,” that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps it just meant that the article had previously been rejected by a bad-attitude reviewer!
2 0.19051671 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
3 0.12352652 1304 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-06-Picking on Stephen Wolfram
Introduction: Shalizi . But this one is still my favorite.
4 0.10778836 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.
5 0.10098506 914 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-16-meta-infographic
Introduction: “Most Popular Infographics you can find around the web” by designer and illustrator Alberto Antoniazzi.
6 0.095006764 1399 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-28-Life imitates blog
7 0.085824989 1464 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-20-Donald E. Westlake on George W. Bush
8 0.079627827 1911 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-23-AI Stats conference on Stan etc.
9 0.072892703 1712 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-07-Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics (with all the discussions!)
10 0.072031826 1405 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-04-“Titanic Thompson: The Man Who Would Bet on Everything”
12 0.068761431 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
13 0.067229055 2034 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-23-My talk Tues 24 Sept at 12h30 at Université de Technologie de Compiègne
14 0.066007949 1134 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-21-Lessons learned from a recent R package submission
15 0.064779513 110 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-26-Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics
16 0.064160094 1708 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-05-Wouldn’t it be cool if Glenn Hubbard were consulting for Herbalife and I were on the other side?
17 0.063360013 2157 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-02-2013
18 0.062140513 1709 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-06-The fractal nature of scientific revolutions
19 0.059869152 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
20 0.059499942 230 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-24-Kaggle forcasting update
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.077), (1, -0.034), (2, -0.036), (3, 0.006), (4, -0.022), (5, -0.013), (6, 0.019), (7, -0.035), (8, -0.002), (9, -0.019), (10, 0.04), (11, -0.021), (12, -0.004), (13, 0.009), (14, 0.003), (15, 0.019), (16, 0.018), (17, -0.005), (18, -0.004), (19, 0.023), (20, -0.008), (21, 0.009), (22, -0.0), (23, -0.022), (24, 0.01), (25, 0.009), (26, -0.039), (27, -0.008), (28, -0.005), (29, -0.019), (30, -0.013), (31, -0.032), (32, -0.024), (33, 0.009), (34, -0.021), (35, -0.029), (36, -0.041), (37, 0.043), (38, 0.017), (39, -0.024), (40, 0.023), (41, 0.03), (42, 0.003), (43, -0.012), (44, -0.031), (45, 0.015), (46, -0.002), (47, -0.054), (48, 0.043), (49, -0.031)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.94683254 1700 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-31-Snotty reviewers
Introduction: I had a submission a couple years ago that was rejected by a journal. One of the reviewers began with the following snotty aside: In this manuscript Gelman and Shalizi (there’s no anonymity here; this thing has been floating around the web for some time) . . . Actually, we posted it on the same day we submitted it to the journal. But double-blindness allowed the reviewer to act as if we had done something wrong! And, even if it had been “floating around the web for some time,” that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps it just meant that the article had previously been rejected by a bad-attitude reviewer!
2 0.73178685 1916 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-The weirdest thing about the AJPH story
Introduction: Earlier today I posted a weird email that began with “You are receiving this notice because you have published a paper with the American Journal of Public Health within the last few years” and continued with a sleazy attempt to squeeze $1000 out of me so that an article that I sent them for free could be available to the public. $1000 might seem like a lot, but they assured me that “we are extending this limited time offer of open access at a steeply discounted rate.” Sort of like a Vegematic but without that set of Ginsu knives thrown in for free. But then when I was responding to comments, I realized that . . . I didn’t actually remember ever publishing anything in that journal. It’s not on my list of 100+ journals. I did a search on my published papers page and couldn’t find anything closer than the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health (and that was not within the last few years). I checked Google Scholar. And then I went straight to the AJPH webpage and sea
3 0.66545767 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 0.65760571 2148 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Spam!
Introduction: This one totally faked me out at first. It was an email from “Nick Bagnall” that began: Dear Dr. Gelman, I made contact last year regarding your work in the CMG: Reconstructing Climate from Tree Ring Data project. We are about to start producing the 2014 edition and I wanted to discuss this with you as we still remain keen to feature your work. Research Media are producing a special publication in February of 2014, within this report we will be working with a small selected number of PI’s with a focus on geosciences, atmospheric and geospace sciences and earth Sciences.. At this point, I’m thinking: Hmmm, I don’t remember this guy, is this some sort of collaborative project that I’d forgotten about? The message then continues: The publication is called International Innovation . . . Huh? This doesn’t sound so good. The email then goes on with some very long lists, and then finally the kicker: The total cost for each article produced in this report is fixed a
5 0.62753284 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 0.62444264 2338 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-19-My short career as a Freud expert
7 0.62309718 457 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-07-Whassup with phantom-limb treatment?
8 0.6184479 1591 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-26-Politics as an escape hatch
9 0.618267 1304 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-06-Picking on Stephen Wolfram
10 0.61095107 2259 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-22-Picking pennies in front of a steamroller: A parable comes to life
11 0.6096276 2052 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-05-Give me a ticket for an aeroplane
12 0.59844828 164 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-26-A very short story
13 0.59320068 1993 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-22-Improvements to Kindle Version of BDA3
14 0.58577091 532 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-23-My Wall Street Journal story
15 0.58093047 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
16 0.57716954 2230 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-02-What is it with Americans in Olympic ski teams from tropical countries?
17 0.57671976 221 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-21-Busted!
18 0.57583755 1306 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-07-Lists of Note and Letters of Note
20 0.56785738 1897 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-13-When’s that next gamma-ray blast gonna come, already?
topicId topicWeight
[(15, 0.165), (16, 0.051), (22, 0.319), (24, 0.087), (99, 0.223)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.88230437 1700 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-31-Snotty reviewers
Introduction: I had a submission a couple years ago that was rejected by a journal. One of the reviewers began with the following snotty aside: In this manuscript Gelman and Shalizi (there’s no anonymity here; this thing has been floating around the web for some time) . . . Actually, we posted it on the same day we submitted it to the journal. But double-blindness allowed the reviewer to act as if we had done something wrong! And, even if it had been “floating around the web for some time,” that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps it just meant that the article had previously been rejected by a bad-attitude reviewer!
2 0.84246743 448 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-03-This is a footnote in one of my papers
Introduction: In the annals of hack literature, it is sometimes said that if you aim to write best-selling crap, all you’ll end up with is crap. To truly produce best-selling crap, you have to have a conviction, perhaps misplaced, that your writing has integrity. Whether or not this is a good generalization about writing, I have seen an analogous phenomenon in statistics: If you try to do nothing but model the data, you can be in for a wild and unpleasant ride: real data always seem to have one more twist beyond our ability to model (von Neumann’s elephant’s trunk notwithstanding). But if you model the underlying process, sometimes your model can fit surprisingly well as well as inviting openings for future research progress.
3 0.81617671 1984 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-16-BDA at 40% off!
Introduction: Our publisher informs me of the exciting news that Amazon is now selling the 3rd edition of our book at 40% off! Enjoy.
4 0.80577409 1398 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-28-Every time you take a sample, you’ll have to pay this guy a quarter
Introduction: Roy Mendelssohn pointed me to this heartwarming story of Jay Vadiveloo, an actuary who got a patent for the idea of statistical sampling. Vadiveloo writes, “the results were astounding: statistical sampling worked.” You may laugh, but wait till Albedo Man buys the patent and makes everybody do his bidding. They’re gonna dig up Laplace and make him pay retroactive royalties. And somehow Clippy will get involved in all this. P.S. Mendelssohn writes: “Yes, I felt it was a heartwarming story also. Perhaps we can get a patent for regression.” I say, forget a patent for regression. I want a patent for the sample mean. That’s where the real money is. You can’t charge a lot for each use, but consider the volume!
5 0.80307221 1037 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-01-Lamentably common misunderstanding of meritocracy
Introduction: Tyler Cowen pointed to an article by business-school professor Luigi Zingales about meritocracy. I’d expect a b-school prof to support the idea of meritocracy, and Zingales does not disappoint. But he says a bunch of other things that to me represent a confused conflation of ideas. Here’s Zingales: America became known as a land of opportunity—a place whose capitalist system benefited the hardworking and the virtuous [emphasis added]. In a word, it was a meritocracy. That’s interesting—and revealing. Here’s what I get when I look up “meritocracy” in the dictionary : 1 : a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement 2 : leadership selected on the basis of intellectual criteria Nothing here about “hardworking” or “virtuous.” In a meritocracy, you can be as hardworking as John Kruk or as virtuous as Kobe Bryant and you’ll still get ahead—if you have the talent and achievement. Throwing in “hardworking” and “virtuous”
6 0.77196282 92 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-17-Drug testing for recipents of NSF and NIH grants?
7 0.76123148 145 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-13-Statistical controversy regarding human rights violations in Colomnbia
9 0.74607849 385 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-31-Wacky surveys where they don’t tell you the questions they asked
10 0.73635018 879 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-29-New journal on causal inference
11 0.73386663 477 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-20-Costless false beliefs
12 0.72102427 1216 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-17-Modeling group-level predictors in a multilevel regression
13 0.71713406 2123 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-04-Tesla fires!
15 0.68974817 1964 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-01-Non-topical blogging
16 0.68839419 2001 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-29-Edgar Allan Poe was a statistician
17 0.68591547 2317 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-04-Honored oldsters write about statistics
18 0.67590904 834 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-01-I owe it all to the haters
20 0.67059088 1541 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-19-Statistical discrimination again