andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-1872 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: I just got this one today: Dear Dr. Gelman, I am pleased to inform you that the ** team has identified your recent publication, “Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics.” as being of special interest to the progress in the Psychology field. We would like to list your publication on our next edition of the ** series. ** alerts the scientific community to breaking journal articles considered to represent the best in Psychology research. For today’s edition, click here. ** is viewed almost 40,000 times each month and has an audience of academic and clinical personnel from a growing number of the top 20 major academic institutions. Publications featured by ** gain extensive exposure. This exposure may benefit you and your organization since this provides a showcase for key research studies such as yours. This exposure has the added benefit of encouraging additional funding. There is a small processing charge for listing publications on ** ($35). Please let us know
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Gelman, I am pleased to inform you that the ** team has identified your recent publication, “Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics. [sent-2, score-0.199]
2 ” as being of special interest to the progress in the Psychology field. [sent-3, score-0.202]
3 We would like to list your publication on our next edition of the ** series. [sent-4, score-0.32]
4 ** alerts the scientific community to breaking journal articles considered to represent the best in Psychology research. [sent-5, score-0.167]
5 ** is viewed almost 40,000 times each month and has an audience of academic and clinical personnel from a growing number of the top 20 major academic institutions. [sent-7, score-0.568]
6 Publications featured by ** gain extensive exposure. [sent-8, score-0.33]
7 This exposure may benefit you and your organization since this provides a showcase for key research studies such as yours. [sent-9, score-0.613]
8 This exposure has the added benefit of encouraging additional funding. [sent-10, score-0.37]
9 There is a small processing charge for listing publications on ** ($35). [sent-11, score-0.478]
10 Please let us know if you are interested in having your work featured on our website. [sent-12, score-0.329]
11 If you accept our invitation we will post the summary of your article with proper citation of the original Journal. [sent-13, score-0.21]
12 You also have the option of adding further information relating to your work including an image (not violating copyright). [sent-14, score-0.186]
13 This may extend your findings; further highlight the importance of your work and organization’s activities. [sent-15, score-0.179]
14 We will process your publication after receiving the payment click here **. [sent-16, score-0.596]
15 If you prefer other forms of payment, please let us know. [sent-17, score-0.253]
16 We do operate within a narrow time frame to meet our aim of delivering breaking publications and we therefore request that if you do wish to be featured you contact us as soon as possible. [sent-18, score-1.348]
17 Whether or not you are interested please feel free to register to our Psychology Progress service at ** ————— ** VP Academic Affairs Psychology Progress 1500 Bank Street Suite 419 Ottawa Ontario K1H 1B8 I’ve removed the name of the organization so as not to help its SEO. [sent-19, score-0.559]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('featured', 0.233), ('publications', 0.223), ('organization', 0.217), ('payment', 0.21), ('progress', 0.202), ('psychology', 0.198), ('publication', 0.169), ('breaking', 0.167), ('exposure', 0.159), ('please', 0.157), ('academic', 0.153), ('edition', 0.151), ('click', 0.136), ('vp', 0.128), ('benefit', 0.122), ('ontario', 0.121), ('showcase', 0.115), ('invitation', 0.111), ('suite', 0.108), ('operate', 0.108), ('delivering', 0.108), ('personnel', 0.103), ('pleased', 0.103), ('copyright', 0.101), ('affairs', 0.101), ('violating', 0.101), ('today', 0.1), ('register', 0.099), ('citation', 0.099), ('extensive', 0.097), ('us', 0.096), ('inform', 0.096), ('listing', 0.094), ('extend', 0.09), ('encouraging', 0.089), ('highlight', 0.089), ('dear', 0.087), ('removed', 0.086), ('bank', 0.086), ('relating', 0.085), ('aim', 0.085), ('frame', 0.083), ('meet', 0.082), ('request', 0.082), ('receiving', 0.081), ('narrow', 0.081), ('viewed', 0.081), ('processing', 0.081), ('charge', 0.08), ('growing', 0.078)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1872 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-27-More spam!
Introduction: I just got this one today: Dear Dr. Gelman, I am pleased to inform you that the ** team has identified your recent publication, “Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics.” as being of special interest to the progress in the Psychology field. We would like to list your publication on our next edition of the ** series. ** alerts the scientific community to breaking journal articles considered to represent the best in Psychology research. For today’s edition, click here. ** is viewed almost 40,000 times each month and has an audience of academic and clinical personnel from a growing number of the top 20 major academic institutions. Publications featured by ** gain extensive exposure. This exposure may benefit you and your organization since this provides a showcase for key research studies such as yours. This exposure has the added benefit of encouraging additional funding. There is a small processing charge for listing publications on ** ($35). Please let us know
2 0.13789114 1291 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-30-Systematic review of publication bias in studies on publication bias
Introduction: Via Yalda Afshar , a 2005 paper by Hans-Hermann Dubben and Hans-Peter Beck-Bornholdt: Publication bias is a well known phenomenon in clinical literature, in which positive results have a better chance of being published, are published earlier, and are published in journals with higher impact factors. Conclusions exclusively based on published studies, therefore, can be misleading. Selective under-reporting of research might be more widespread and more likely to have adverse consequences for patients than publication of deliberately falsified data. We investigated whether there is preferential publication of positive papers on publication bias. They conclude, “We found no evidence of publication bias in reports on publication bias.” But of course that’s the sort of finding regarding publication bias of findings on publication bias that you’d expect would get published. What we really need is a careful meta-analysis to estimate the level of publication bias in studies of publi
3 0.11948033 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
Introduction: In our recent discussion of modes of publication, Joseph Wilson wrote, “The single best reform science can make right now is to decouple publication from career advancement, thereby reducing the number of publications by an order of magnitude and then move to an entirely disjointed, informal, online free-for-all communication system for research results.” My first thought on this was: Sure, yeah, that makes sense. But then I got to thinking: what would it really mean to decouple publication from career advancement? This is too late for me—I’m middle-aged and have no career advancement in my future—but it got me thinking more carefully about the role of publication in the research process, and this seemed worth a blog (the simplest sort of publication available to me). However, somewhere between writing the above paragraphs and writing the blog entry, I forgot exactly what I was going to say! I guess I should’ve just typed it all in then. In the old days I just wouldn’t run this
4 0.11429401 1298 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-03-News from the sister blog!
Introduction: US National Academy of Sciences elects 84 new members (Please click through and read the whole thing.)
5 0.10987736 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
6 0.10419872 1915 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-Huh?
7 0.096145488 2148 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Spam!
8 0.091856048 901 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-12-Some thoughts on academic cheating, inspired by Frey, Wegman, Fischer, Hauser, Stapel
9 0.090801723 866 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-23-Participate in a research project on combining information for prediction
10 0.089594416 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
11 0.088641867 367 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-25-In today’s economy, the rich get richer
12 0.088550821 1451 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-08-Robert Kosara reviews Ed Tufte’s short course
13 0.087689027 1712 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-07-Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics (with all the discussions!)
14 0.086685136 1756 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-10-He said he was sorry
15 0.086678468 231 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-24-Yet another Bayesian job opportunity
16 0.085116252 1909 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-21-Job openings at conservative political analytics firm!
17 0.084029272 1240 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-02-Blogads update
19 0.082069583 658 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-11-Statistics in high schools: Towards more accessible conceptions of statistical inference
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.138), (1, -0.046), (2, -0.076), (3, -0.043), (4, -0.038), (5, 0.013), (6, -0.013), (7, -0.064), (8, -0.074), (9, 0.008), (10, 0.033), (11, -0.043), (12, -0.004), (13, 0.035), (14, -0.016), (15, 0.036), (16, 0.032), (17, -0.044), (18, 0.002), (19, 0.022), (20, 0.009), (21, 0.067), (22, 0.023), (23, -0.049), (24, -0.003), (25, -0.002), (26, 0.019), (27, -0.001), (28, -0.016), (29, -0.007), (30, -0.037), (31, -0.058), (32, -0.014), (33, 0.026), (34, 0.007), (35, -0.031), (36, -0.007), (37, -0.005), (38, 0.035), (39, -0.014), (40, 0.028), (41, -0.058), (42, 0.03), (43, 0.052), (44, -0.018), (45, 0.092), (46, -0.025), (47, -0.001), (48, -0.008), (49, 0.029)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.98232251 1872 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-27-More spam!
Introduction: I just got this one today: Dear Dr. Gelman, I am pleased to inform you that the ** team has identified your recent publication, “Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics.” as being of special interest to the progress in the Psychology field. We would like to list your publication on our next edition of the ** series. ** alerts the scientific community to breaking journal articles considered to represent the best in Psychology research. For today’s edition, click here. ** is viewed almost 40,000 times each month and has an audience of academic and clinical personnel from a growing number of the top 20 major academic institutions. Publications featured by ** gain extensive exposure. This exposure may benefit you and your organization since this provides a showcase for key research studies such as yours. This exposure has the added benefit of encouraging additional funding. There is a small processing charge for listing publications on ** ($35). Please let us know
2 0.77415174 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
3 0.7375856 2239 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-09-Reviewing the peer review process?
Introduction: I received the following email: Dear Colleague, Recently we informed you about SciRev, our new website where researchers can share their experiences with the peer review process and select an efficient journal for submitting their work. Since our start, we already received over 500 reviews and many positive reactions, which reveal a great need for comparable information on duration and quality of the review process. All reviews are publicly available on our website, both at the pages of the journals and in an overview at www.scirev.sc/reviews To make this venture a success, many reviews are needed. We therefore would appreciate it very much if you could take a few minutes to visit our website www.SciRev.sc and share your recent review experiences with your colleagues. SciRev also offers you the possibility to create a free account where you can administer your manuscripts under review and create a personal journal list. Thanks on behalf of the research community, Jan
4 0.73409665 1922 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-02-They want me to send them free material and pay for the privilege
Introduction: Since we’re on the topic of publishers asking me for money . . . The other day I received the following email: Mimi Liljeholm has sent you a message. Please click ‘Reply’ to send a direct response. Dear Prof Gelman, In collaboration with Frontiers in Psychology, we are organizing a Research Topic titled “Causal discovery and generalization”, hosted by Mimi Liljeholm and Marc Buehner. As host editor, I would like to encourage you to contribute to this topic. A brief description of the topic is provided on our homepage on the Frontiers website (section “Frontiers in Cognition”). This is also where all articles will appear after peer-review and where participants in the topic will be able to hold relevant discussions: http://www.frontiersin.org/Cognition/researchtopics/Causal_discovery_and_generaliz/1906 Frontiers, a Swiss open-access publisher, recently partnered with Nature Publishing Group to expand its researcher-driven Open Science platform. Frontiers articles are rig
5 0.68796593 1756 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-10-He said he was sorry
Introduction: Yes, it can be done : Hereby I contact you to clarify the situation that occurred with the publication of the article entitled *** which was published in Volume 11, Issue 3 of *** and I made the mistake of declaring as an author. This chapter is a plagiarism of . . . I wish to express and acknowledge that I am solely responsible for this . . . I recognize the gravity of the offense committed, since there is no justification for so doing. Therefore, and as a sign of shame and regret I feel in this situation, I will publish this letter, in order to set an example for other researchers do not engage in a similar error. No more, and to please accept my apologies, Sincerely, *** P.S. Since we’re on Retraction Watch already, I’ll point you to this unrelated story featuring a hilarious photo of a fraudster, who in this case was a grad student in psychology who faked his data and “has agreed to submit to a three-year supervisory period for any work involving funding from the
6 0.68536663 2304 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-24-An open site for researchers to post and share papers
7 0.67933619 58 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-29-Stupid legal crap
8 0.65520471 1911 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-23-AI Stats conference on Stan etc.
10 0.64485842 577 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-16-Annals of really really stupid spam
11 0.64352542 1618 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-11-The consulting biz
12 0.62386984 2095 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-09-Typo in Ghitza and Gelman MRP paper
13 0.6198619 866 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-23-Participate in a research project on combining information for prediction
14 0.61329895 343 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-?
15 0.61309159 1774 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-22-Likelihood Ratio ≠ 1 Journal
16 0.60525328 2148 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Spam!
17 0.59797353 1916 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-The weirdest thing about the AJPH story
18 0.59698802 1298 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-03-News from the sister blog!
19 0.59677899 2179 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-20-The AAA Tranche of Subprime Science
20 0.59566063 178 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-03-(Partisan) visualization of health care legislation
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.011), (2, 0.245), (15, 0.057), (16, 0.108), (21, 0.017), (24, 0.1), (36, 0.026), (63, 0.013), (66, 0.012), (69, 0.01), (82, 0.01), (86, 0.018), (99, 0.242)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.97305346 97 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-18-Economic Disparities and Life Satisfaction in European Regions
Introduction: Grazia Pittau, Roberto Zelli, and I came out with a paper investigating the role of economic variables in predicting regional disparities in reported life satisfaction of European Union citizens. We use multilevel modeling to explicitly account for the hierarchical nature of our data, respondents within regions and countries, and for understanding patterns of variation within and between regions. Here’s what we found: - Personal income matters more in poor regions than in rich regions, a pattern that still holds for regions within the same country. - Being unemployed is negatively associated with life satisfaction even after controlled for income variation. Living in high unemployment regions does not alleviate the unhappiness of being out of work. - After controlling for individual characteristics and modeling interactions, regional differences in life satisfaction still remain. Here’s a quick graph; there’s more in the article:
2 0.9661144 489 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-28-Brow inflation
Introduction: In an article headlined, “Hollywood moves away from middlebrow,” Brooks Barnes writes : As Hollywood plowed into 2010, there was plenty of clinging to the tried and true: humdrum remakes like “The Wolfman” and “The A-Team”; star vehicles like “Killers” with Ashton Kutcher and “The Tourist” with Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp; and shoddy sequels like “Sex and the City 2.” All arrived at theaters with marketing thunder intended to fill multiplexes on opening weekend, no matter the quality of the film. . . . But the audience pushed back. One by one, these expensive yet middle-of-the-road pictures delivered disappointing results or flat-out flopped. Meanwhile, gambles on original concepts paid off. “Inception,” a complicated thriller about dream invaders, racked up more than $825 million in global ticket sales; “The Social Network” has so far delivered $192 million, a stellar result for a highbrow drama. . . . the message that the year sent about quality and originality is real enoug
3 0.96496165 663 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-15-Happy tax day!
Introduction: Your taxes pay for the research funding that supports the work we do here, some of which appears on this blog and almost all of which is public, free, and open-source. So, to all of the taxpayers out there in the audience: thank you.
Introduction: Writing in the Washington Post, Matt Miller wants a billionaire to run for president and “save the country.” We already have two billionaires running for president. (OK, not really. Romney has a mere quarter of a billion bucks, and it’s Huntsman’s dad, not Huntsman himself, who’s the billionaire in that family.) And, according to all reports, NYC mayor Bloomberg would run for president in an instant if he thought he’d have a chance of winning. So we should amend Miller’s article to say that he wants a billionaire presidential candidate who (a) shares the political views of a “senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-host of public radio’s “Left, Right, and Center” and (b) has a chance of winning. That shouldn’t be too hard to find, right? Hey, I have an idea! MIller writes that that Thomas Friedman just wrote a book arguing that “the right independent candidacy could provide for our dysfunctional politics presents an unrivaled opportunity.” Friedman’s actu
5 0.95492661 17 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-05-Taking philosophical arguments literally
Introduction: Aaron Swartz writes the following, as a lead-in to an argument in favor of vegetarianism: Imagine you were an early settler of what is now the United States. It seems likely you would have killed native Americans. After all, your parents killed them, your siblings killed them, your friends killed them, the leaders of the community killed them, the President killed them. Chances are, you would have killed them too . . . Or if you see nothing wrong with killing native Americans, take the example of slavery. Again, everyone had slaves and probably didn’t think too much about the morality of it. . . . Are these statements true, though? It’s hard for me to believe that most early settlers (from the context, it looks like Swartz is discussing the 1500s-1700s here) killed native Americans. That is, if N is the number of early settlers, and Y is the number of these settlers who killed at least one Indian, I suspect Y/N is much closer to 0 than to 1. Similarly, it’s not even cl
6 0.95245826 549 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-01-“Roughly 90% of the increase in . . .” Hey, wait a minute!
7 0.95233691 1017 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-18-Lack of complete overlap
same-blog 8 0.94147921 1872 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-27-More spam!
9 0.94118184 44 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-20-Boris was right
10 0.93892223 1189 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-28-Those darn physicists
11 0.92374891 1663 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-09-The effects of fiscal consolidation
12 0.92287982 1954 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-24-Too Good To Be True: The Scientific Mass Production of Spurious Statistical Significance
13 0.92029512 1698 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-30-The spam just gets weirder and weirder
14 0.91394746 1508 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-23-Speaking frankly
15 0.89572322 1893 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-11-Folic acid and autism
16 0.88288283 1567 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-07-Election reports
17 0.88150334 1254 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-09-In the future, everyone will publish everything.
18 0.87733757 1102 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-06-Bayesian Anova found useful in ecology
19 0.87272662 1260 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-11-Hunger Games survival analysis
20 0.85891914 1171 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-16-“False-positive psychology”