andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-1916 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
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
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 $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. [sent-2, score-0.979]
2 ” Sort of like a Vegematic but without that set of Ginsu knives thrown in for free. [sent-3, score-0.324]
3 But then when I was responding to comments, I realized that . [sent-4, score-0.237]
4 I didn’t actually remember ever publishing anything in that journal. [sent-7, score-0.209]
5 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). [sent-9, score-0.904]
6 And then I went straight to the AJPH webpage and searched on Gelman. [sent-11, score-0.38]
7 But all I could find were a bunch of papers by an Anna C. [sent-12, score-0.23]
8 Gelman (no relation that I know of) from the 1960s: So now I really don’t know what was going on. [sent-13, score-0.11]
9 Maybe there’s a paper in press that I’m not aware of? [sent-14, score-0.197]
10 It’s a good thing I didn’t send them the thousand bucks! [sent-15, score-0.214]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('ajph', 0.198), ('steeply', 0.198), ('knives', 0.198), ('australian', 0.186), ('discounted', 0.186), ('squeeze', 0.186), ('anna', 0.186), ('health', 0.163), ('zealand', 0.163), ('sleazy', 0.159), ('bucks', 0.15), ('searched', 0.148), ('assured', 0.145), ('extending', 0.143), ('continued', 0.139), ('within', 0.138), ('papers', 0.134), ('responding', 0.128), ('public', 0.127), ('journal', 0.127), ('thrown', 0.126), ('receiving', 0.125), ('webpage', 0.124), ('thousand', 0.124), ('began', 0.12), ('weird', 0.117), ('checked', 0.116), ('published', 0.114), ('last', 0.113), ('anything', 0.112), ('relation', 0.11), ('access', 0.11), ('closer', 0.109), ('realized', 0.109), ('straight', 0.108), ('didn', 0.106), ('limited', 0.106), ('notice', 0.104), ('attempt', 0.103), ('press', 0.101), ('publishing', 0.097), ('find', 0.096), ('aware', 0.096), ('offer', 0.091), ('send', 0.09), ('couldn', 0.089), ('google', 0.089), ('search', 0.088), ('gelman', 0.087), ('posted', 0.086)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 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
2 0.32416248 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
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.
4 0.14265573 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
5 0.13072026 58 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-29-Stupid legal crap
Introduction: From the website of a journal where I published an article: In Springer journals you have the choice of publishing with or without open access. If you choose open access, your article will be freely available to everyone everywhere. In exchange for an open access fee of â‚Ź 2000 / US $3000 you retain the copyright and your article will carry the Creative Commons License. Please make your choice below. Hmmm . . . pay $3000 so that an article that I wrote and gave to the journal for free can be accessed by others? Sounds like a good deal to me!
6 0.11682384 1928 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-06-How to think about papers published in low-grade journals?
7 0.11056142 1393 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-The reverse-journal-submission system
8 0.099355839 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
9 0.097720906 2304 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-24-An open site for researchers to post and share papers
10 0.097259909 651 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-06-My talk at Northwestern University tomorrow (Thursday)
11 0.095070966 465 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-13-$3M health care prediction challenge
12 0.094903067 2233 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-04-Literal vs. rhetorical
13 0.093782872 2220 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-22-Quickies
14 0.091944478 109 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-25-Classics of statistics
15 0.091268882 503 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-04-Clarity on my email policy
16 0.090177976 902 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-12-The importance of style in academic writing
17 0.090078413 207 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-14-Pourquoi Google search est devenu plus raisonnable?
18 0.089495786 2148 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Spam!
19 0.088907778 1878 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-31-How to fix the tabloids? Toward replicable social science research
20 0.088719964 2111 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-23-Tables > figures yet again
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.157), (1, -0.091), (2, -0.077), (3, -0.046), (4, -0.007), (5, -0.014), (6, 0.033), (7, -0.124), (8, -0.025), (9, -0.037), (10, 0.093), (11, -0.021), (12, 0.01), (13, 0.07), (14, 0.002), (15, 0.022), (16, 0.046), (17, -0.001), (18, -0.012), (19, 0.028), (20, 0.012), (21, 0.026), (22, 0.076), (23, -0.058), (24, 0.004), (25, 0.011), (26, -0.046), (27, -0.015), (28, 0.002), (29, -0.01), (30, -0.048), (31, -0.036), (32, -0.0), (33, 0.014), (34, -0.049), (35, -0.056), (36, 0.03), (37, 0.019), (38, 0.045), (39, 0.007), (40, 0.065), (41, -0.005), (42, 0.002), (43, 0.031), (44, -0.034), (45, -0.034), (46, 0.004), (47, -0.057), (48, -0.015), (49, -0.056)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97267646 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
2 0.89397329 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 0.83848071 58 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-29-Stupid legal crap
Introduction: From the website of a journal where I published an article: In Springer journals you have the choice of publishing with or without open access. If you choose open access, your article will be freely available to everyone everywhere. In exchange for an open access fee of â‚Ź 2000 / US $3000 you retain the copyright and your article will carry the Creative Commons License. Please make your choice below. Hmmm . . . pay $3000 so that an article that I wrote and gave to the journal for free can be accessed by others? Sounds like a good deal to me!
4 0.79861534 2304 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-24-An open site for researchers to post and share papers
Introduction: Alexander Grossman writes : We have launched a beta version of ScienceOpen in December at the occasion of the MRS Fall meeting in Boston. The participants of that conference, most of them were active researchers in physics, chemistry, and materials science, provided us with a very positive feedback. In particular they emphazised that it appears to be a good idea to offer scientists a free platform to collaborate with each other and to share draft versions of their next paper privately. Meanwhile more than 1 million open access papers in the area of the natural sciences and medicine can be accessed via ScienceOpen, read, and commented or evaluated after publication. We call this concept post-publication peer review. I don’t know anything about this but I thought I’d share it with you. I know a lot of people use Arxiv but that has some problems, maybe this will have some advantages. P.S. A commenter writes that the website says, “Fee for publication on the ScienceOpen p
5 0.76458126 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
6 0.75687468 2148 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Spam!
7 0.74847466 834 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-01-I owe it all to the haters
8 0.74319464 1429 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-26-Our broken scholarly publishing system
9 0.73541462 2239 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-09-Reviewing the peer review process?
10 0.73055422 2095 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-09-Typo in Ghitza and Gelman MRP paper
11 0.72004378 2111 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-23-Tables > figures yet again
12 0.71674311 172 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-30-Why don’t we have peer reviewing for oral presentations?
13 0.70090127 282 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-17-I can’t escape it
15 0.69795263 2233 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-04-Literal vs. rhetorical
16 0.69657141 1393 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-The reverse-journal-submission system
17 0.69464111 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
18 0.68608427 1872 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-27-More spam!
19 0.68391389 675 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-22-Arrow’s other theorem
20 0.67728639 1137 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-24-Difficulties in publishing non-replications of implausible findings
topicId topicWeight
[(13, 0.222), (15, 0.037), (16, 0.091), (21, 0.014), (24, 0.072), (29, 0.11), (65, 0.014), (77, 0.013), (85, 0.016), (86, 0.025), (95, 0.014), (99, 0.28)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.91108161 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
2 0.90832782 1559 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-02-The blog is back
Introduction: We had some security problem: not an actual virus or anything, but a potential leak which caused Google to blacklist us. Cord fixed us and now we’re fine. Good job, Google! Better to find the potential problem before there is any harm!
3 0.90564072 1789 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-05-Elites have alcohol problems too!
Introduction: Speaking of Tyler Cowen, I’m puzzled by this paragraph of his: Guns, like alcohol, have many legitimate uses, and they are enjoyed by many people in a responsible manner. In both cases, there is an elite which has absolutely no problems handling the institution in question, but still there is the question of whether the nation really can have such bifurcated social norms, namely one set of standards for the elite and another set for everybody else. I don’t know anything about guns so I’ll set that part aside. My bafflement is with the claim that “there is an elite which has absolutely no problem handling [alcohol].” Is he kidding? Unless Cowen is circularly defining “an elite” as the subset of elites who don’t have an alcohol problem, I don’t buy this claim. And I actually think it’s a serious problem, that various “elites” are so sure that they have “absolutely no problem” that they do dangerous, dangerous things. Consider the notorious incident when Dick Cheney shot a
4 0.90459037 172 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-30-Why don’t we have peer reviewing for oral presentations?
Introduction: Panos Ipeirotis writes in his blog post : Everyone who has attended a conference knows that the quality of the talks is very uneven. There are talks that are highly engaging, entertaining, and describe nicely the research challenges and solutions. And there are talks that are a waste of time. Either the presenter cannot present clearly, or the presented content is impossible to digest within the time frame of the presentation. We already have reviewing for the written part. The program committee examines the quality of the written paper and vouch for its technical content. However, by looking at a paper it is impossible to know how nicely it can be presented. Perhaps the seemingly solid but boring paper can be a very entertaining presentation. Or an excellent paper may be written by a horrible presenter. Why not having a second round of reviewing, where the authors of accepted papers submit their presentations (slides and a YouTube video) for presentation to the conference.
5 0.90393865 234 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-25-Modeling constrained parameters
Introduction: Mike McLaughlin writes: In general, is there any way to do MCMC with a fixed constraint? E.g., suppose I measure the three internal angles of a triangle with errors ~dnorm(0, tau) where tau might be different for the three measurements. This would be an easy BUGS/WinBUGS/JAGS exercise but suppose, in addition, I wanted to include prior information to the effect that the three angles had to total 180 degrees exactly. Is this feasible? Could you point me to any BUGS model in which a constraint of this type is implemented? Note: Even in my own (non-hierarchical) code which tends to be component-wise, random-walk Metropolis with tuned Laplacian proposals, I cannot see how I could incorporate such a constraint. My reply: See page 508 of Bayesian Data Analysis (2nd edition). We have an example of such a model there (from this paper with Bois and Jiang).
6 0.89483029 1137 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-24-Difficulties in publishing non-replications of implausible findings
7 0.88494915 345 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-Things we do on sabbatical instead of actually working
8 0.87673318 1519 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-02-Job!
9 0.87510383 597 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-02-RStudio – new cross-platform IDE for R
10 0.87129086 971 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-25-Apply now for Earth Institute postdoctoral fellowships at Columbia University
11 0.86118042 1852 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-12-Crime novels for economists
12 0.8611275 437 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-29-The mystery of the U-shaped relationship between happiness and age
13 0.86069107 1942 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-17-“Stop and frisk” statistics
14 0.85662168 424 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-21-Data cleaning tool!
15 0.85616779 1509 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-24-Analyzing photon counts
16 0.85569531 817 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-23-New blog home
19 0.84220308 1514 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-28-AdviseStat 47% Campaign Ad
20 0.82771099 800 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-13-I like lineplots