andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-2075 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Rob “ Lasso ” Tibshirani writes: We all read a lot of papers and often have useful things to say about them, but there is no systematic way to do this lots of journals have commenting systems, but they’re clunky, and, most importantly, they’re scattered across thousands of sites. Journals don’t encourage critical comments from readers, and letters to the editor are difficult to publish and given too little space. If we’re ever going to develop a culture of commenting on the literature, we need to have a simple and centralized way of doing it. Last year, I [Tibshirani] approached my Stanford colleague Pat Brown, a founder of PLOS, with the idea of creating a site where scientists could comment on ANY published research article something like comments on movies at Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB) or comments on books and other products at Amazon. Pat said that he been discussing similar ideas with his PLOS cofounder Michael Eisen, and that they felt strongly that a standalone si
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 They felt that the best way to develop a successful culture of commenting on science papers would be to make this an option at PubMed. [sent-6, score-0.38]
2 David took the idea to the NIH leadership, who approved the development of a pilot commenting system called PubMed Commons. [sent-10, score-0.489]
3 One would like the system to be inclusive as possible but many scientists would not be interested in posting comments in a system with a high proportion of irrelevant or uninformed  comments. [sent-14, score-1.008]
4 The decision was made that comments could only be posted by authors of papers in PubMed. [sent-18, score-0.514]
5 And a group commenting feature to be described below could help improve inclusiveness. [sent-24, score-0.399]
6 One big issue that we have faced was the question of whether anonymous comments should be allowed. [sent-26, score-0.501]
7 But those opposed to anonymous comments believed that the quality of interchange would be higher if commenters were required to identify themselves. [sent-29, score-0.606]
8 In the end, these differences weren’t really resolved and the decision was to start without anonymous comments and reevaluate after the system had been fully public for a while. [sent-30, score-0.684]
9 Group comments Gary Ward, an active member of the lead user group, was very keen on using PubMed Commons to post comments from a journal club for a class he participates in at the University of Vermont. [sent-32, score-0.763]
10 He proposed that there should be some way for PubMed Commons to accommodate comments posted by a group. [sent-33, score-0.374]
11 David Lipman noted that group comments would also be a way to allow participation by a wider range of commenters: A group could be initiated by a regular PubMed Commons participant (i. [sent-34, score-0.883]
12 was an author of a paper indexed in PubMed), giving it a title, short description, and list of participants and then posting comments on their behalf. [sent-36, score-0.459]
13 While a group comment could be submitted by a particular group member, in many cases, they would reflect the consensus of the group and such collective comments could be quite valuable. [sent-37, score-1.099]
14 The NCBI team developed a working version of PubMed Commons earlier this summer and I posted the first comment in the closed pilot on June 17. [sent-39, score-0.416]
15 The current system is pretty simple after registering you’ll see the PubMed Commons landing page which has all the most recent comments and links for information on how to use the system. [sent-42, score-0.493]
16 When you’re signed in you’ll see below each PubMed record a box for posting comments or replies to existing comments as well as a place to indicate that an existing comment or reply was useful. [sent-43, score-0.83]
17 NCBI is investigating ways to open Commons up directly and automatically to more groups of published scientists but if new participants invite their colleagues, the network effect could broaden membership and expand participation dramatically. [sent-48, score-0.405]
18 The system will still be in a closed pilot mode where only registered participants can see the posted comments but NIH leadership will be evaluating the closed pilot with the hope of making all comments visible to all users of PubMed. [sent-49, score-1.487]
19 , whereas if the comments are directly attached to the article, maybe they would be taken more seriously. [sent-61, score-0.419]
20 I wouldn’t mind if my own articles had comments from others attached—although I guess I’d be upset if we ended up with the kind of thing we see in the comments sections of newspaper blogs. [sent-62, score-0.618]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('pubmed', 0.529), ('commons', 0.326), ('comments', 0.309), ('nih', 0.199), ('commenting', 0.196), ('system', 0.184), ('ncbi', 0.164), ('group', 0.149), ('anonymous', 0.143), ('comment', 0.114), ('pilot', 0.109), ('pat', 0.098), ('plos', 0.092), ('participants', 0.091), ('commenters', 0.088), ('scientists', 0.085), ('lipman', 0.082), ('closed', 0.077), ('open', 0.074), ('would', 0.066), ('posted', 0.065), ('founder', 0.062), ('registered', 0.06), ('posting', 0.059), ('post', 0.058), ('leadership', 0.057), ('participant', 0.057), ('tibshirani', 0.056), ('many', 0.055), ('could', 0.054), ('invite', 0.052), ('team', 0.051), ('journals', 0.051), ('wider', 0.05), ('issue', 0.049), ('participation', 0.049), ('decision', 0.048), ('critical', 0.046), ('attached', 0.044), ('member', 0.044), ('user', 0.043), ('valuable', 0.042), ('david', 0.041), ('users', 0.04), ('re', 0.04), ('develop', 0.04), ('culture', 0.04), ('record', 0.039), ('site', 0.039), ('papers', 0.038)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000004 2075 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-23-PubMed Commons: A system for commenting on articles in PubMed
Introduction: Rob “ Lasso ” Tibshirani writes: We all read a lot of papers and often have useful things to say about them, but there is no systematic way to do this lots of journals have commenting systems, but they’re clunky, and, most importantly, they’re scattered across thousands of sites. Journals don’t encourage critical comments from readers, and letters to the editor are difficult to publish and given too little space. If we’re ever going to develop a culture of commenting on the literature, we need to have a simple and centralized way of doing it. Last year, I [Tibshirani] approached my Stanford colleague Pat Brown, a founder of PLOS, with the idea of creating a site where scientists could comment on ANY published research article something like comments on movies at Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB) or comments on books and other products at Amazon. Pat said that he been discussing similar ideas with his PLOS cofounder Michael Eisen, and that they felt strongly that a standalone si
Introduction: From 2.5 years ago . Read all the comments; the discussion is helpful.
3 0.13813668 790 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-08-Blog in motion
Introduction: In the next few days we’ll be changing the format of the blog and moving it to a new server. If you have difficulty posting comments, just wait and post them in a few days when all should be working well. (But if you can post a comment, go for it. All the old entries and comments should be reappearing in the reconstituted blog.)
4 0.12367031 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!
5 0.12143119 1202 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-08-Between and within-Krugman correlation
Introduction: I just wanted to point out this comment of mine which applies the principles of analysis of variance to an informal model of political opinions and intellectual stances. I hate it when my best lines are buried within a comment thread. (I also hate that I respond to blog comments rather than doing real work, but that’s another story. One of the good things about blogging for 538, back when I was doing that, was that the comments were soooo bad I just stopped reading them. Commenters here often have something interesting to say.) P.S. See also here .
6 0.11692939 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
7 0.11275268 1791 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-07-Scatterplot charades!
8 0.10744083 619 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-19-If a comment is flagged as spam, it will disappear forever
9 0.10562512 1168 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-14-The tabloids strike again
10 0.10517093 220 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-20-Why I blog?
11 0.10346096 1273 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-20-Proposals for alternative review systems for scientific work
12 0.10036117 2088 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-04-Recently in the sister blog
13 0.10016909 199 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-11-Note to semi-spammers
14 0.099412508 1272 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-20-More proposals to reform the peer-review system
15 0.096879721 1994 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-22-“The comment section is open, but I’m not going to read them”
16 0.094053812 771 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-16-30 days of statistics
17 0.093182072 2232 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-03-What is the appropriate time scale for blogging—the day or the week?
18 0.092048891 2265 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-24-On deck this week
19 0.091542684 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
20 0.090945467 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.192), (1, -0.064), (2, -0.057), (3, -0.044), (4, 0.005), (5, 0.006), (6, 0.021), (7, -0.07), (8, -0.017), (9, -0.027), (10, 0.04), (11, 0.025), (12, 0.042), (13, 0.025), (14, -0.022), (15, 0.034), (16, -0.0), (17, -0.02), (18, -0.034), (19, 0.052), (20, 0.056), (21, 0.004), (22, -0.035), (23, -0.04), (24, -0.025), (25, 0.007), (26, 0.055), (27, 0.054), (28, 0.018), (29, 0.012), (30, -0.026), (31, -0.034), (32, 0.018), (33, 0.003), (34, -0.019), (35, 0.015), (36, 0.029), (37, 0.073), (38, 0.045), (39, 0.009), (40, -0.026), (41, -0.016), (42, -0.028), (43, 0.022), (44, -0.017), (45, -0.014), (46, 0.021), (47, -0.038), (48, -0.053), (49, -0.009)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97578442 2075 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-23-PubMed Commons: A system for commenting on articles in PubMed
Introduction: Rob “ Lasso ” Tibshirani writes: We all read a lot of papers and often have useful things to say about them, but there is no systematic way to do this lots of journals have commenting systems, but they’re clunky, and, most importantly, they’re scattered across thousands of sites. Journals don’t encourage critical comments from readers, and letters to the editor are difficult to publish and given too little space. If we’re ever going to develop a culture of commenting on the literature, we need to have a simple and centralized way of doing it. Last year, I [Tibshirani] approached my Stanford colleague Pat Brown, a founder of PLOS, with the idea of creating a site where scientists could comment on ANY published research article something like comments on movies at Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB) or comments on books and other products at Amazon. Pat said that he been discussing similar ideas with his PLOS cofounder Michael Eisen, and that they felt strongly that a standalone si
2 0.84383261 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
3 0.76674604 2232 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-03-What is the appropriate time scale for blogging—the day or the week?
Introduction: I post (approximately) once a day and don’t plan to change that. I have enough material to post more often—for example, I could intersperse existing blog posts with summaries of my published papers or of other work that I like; and, beyond this, we currently have a one-to-two-month backlog of posts—but I’m afraid that if the number of posts were doubled, the attention given to each would be roughly halved. Looking at it the other way, I certainly don’t want to reduce my level of posting. Sure, it takes time to blog, but these are things that are important for me to say. If I were to blog less frequently, it would only be because I was pouring all these words into a different vessel, for example a book. For now, though, I think it makes sense to blog and then collect the words later as appropriate. With blogging I get comments, and many of these comments are helpful—either directly (by pointing out errors in my thinking or linking to relevant software or literature) or indirec
4 0.76014239 220 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-20-Why I blog?
Introduction: There is sometimes a line of news, a thought or an article sufficiently aligned with the general topics on this blog that is worth sharing. I could have emailed it to a few friends who are interested. Or I could have gone through the relative hassle of opening up the blog administration interface, cleaned it up a little, added some thoughts and made it pretty to post on the blog. And then it’s poring through hundreds of spam messages, just to find two or three false positives in a thousand spams. Or, finding the links, ideas and comments reproduced on another blog without attribution or credit. Or, even, finding the whole blog mirrored on another website. It might seem all work and no fun, but what keeps me coming back is your comments: the discussions, the additional links, information and insights you provide, this is what makes it all worthwhile. Thanks, those of you who are commenters! And let us know what would make your life easier.
5 0.73244369 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
6 0.72541636 771 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-16-30 days of statistics
7 0.716057 2088 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-04-Recently in the sister blog
8 0.71573323 1623 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-14-GiveWell charity recommendations
9 0.71259564 1709 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-06-The fractal nature of scientific revolutions
10 0.69777471 1854 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-13-A Structural Comparison of Conspicuous Consumption in China and the United States
11 0.69772679 1964 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-01-Non-topical blogging
12 0.69502831 1168 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-14-The tabloids strike again
13 0.6935969 1530 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-11-Migrating your blog from Movable Type to WordPress
14 0.68981755 1916 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-The weirdest thing about the AJPH story
15 0.68869787 1502 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-19-Scalability in education
16 0.68648702 976 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-27-Geophysicist Discovers Modeling Error (in Economics)
17 0.68383813 1202 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-08-Between and within-Krugman correlation
18 0.68329954 1922 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-02-They want me to send them free material and pay for the privilege
19 0.68265712 458 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-08-Blogging: Is it “fair use”?
20 0.6804074 2233 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-04-Literal vs. rhetorical
topicId topicWeight
[(9, 0.03), (15, 0.041), (16, 0.085), (18, 0.051), (24, 0.112), (30, 0.03), (45, 0.03), (53, 0.052), (66, 0.023), (69, 0.012), (76, 0.015), (85, 0.036), (98, 0.033), (99, 0.303)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96667194 2075 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-23-PubMed Commons: A system for commenting on articles in PubMed
Introduction: Rob “ Lasso ” Tibshirani writes: We all read a lot of papers and often have useful things to say about them, but there is no systematic way to do this lots of journals have commenting systems, but they’re clunky, and, most importantly, they’re scattered across thousands of sites. Journals don’t encourage critical comments from readers, and letters to the editor are difficult to publish and given too little space. If we’re ever going to develop a culture of commenting on the literature, we need to have a simple and centralized way of doing it. Last year, I [Tibshirani] approached my Stanford colleague Pat Brown, a founder of PLOS, with the idea of creating a site where scientists could comment on ANY published research article something like comments on movies at Internet Movie Data Base (IMDB) or comments on books and other products at Amazon. Pat said that he been discussing similar ideas with his PLOS cofounder Michael Eisen, and that they felt strongly that a standalone si
2 0.95958203 1319 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-14-I hate to get all Gerd Gigerenzer on you here, but . . .
Introduction: Jonathan Cantor points me to an opinion piece by psychologist Reid Hastie, “Our Gift for Good Stories Blinds Us to the Truth.” I have mixed feelings about Hastie’s article. On one hand I do think his point is important. It’s not new to me, but presumably it’s new to many readers of bloomberg.com. I like Hastie’s book (with Robyn Dawes), Rational Choice in an Uncertain World, and I’m predisposed to like anything new that he writes. On the other hand, there’s something about Hastie’s article that bothered me. It seemed a bit smug, as if he thinks he understands the world and wants to just explain it to the rest of us. That could be fine—after all, Hastie is a distinguished psychology researcher—but I wasn’t so clear that he’s so clear on what he’s saying. For example: The human brain is designed to support two modes of thought: visual and narrative. These forms of thinking are universal across human societies throughout history, develop reliably early in individuals’ lives
3 0.95857209 814 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-21-The powerful consumer?
Introduction: Economist David Backus writes : A casual reader of economic news can’t help but get the impression that the way to get the economy moving is to have people spend more — consume more, in the language of macroeconomics. Seems obvious, doesn’t it? At the risk of making the obvious complicated, I’d say it’s not so obvious. It’s also not obvious that consumption has gone down since the crisis, or that saving has gone up. So what’s going on with the labor market? I’ll get to the rest of the explanation, but first some background. The other day, I posted posted this remark from Backus: This is from my area of work, macroeconomics. The suggestion here is that the economy is growing slowly because consumers aren’t spending money. But how do we know it’s not the reverse: that consumers are spending less because the economy isn’t doing well. As a teacher, I can tell you that it’s almost impossible to get students to understand that the first statement isn’t obviously true
4 0.95602727 2313 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-30-Seth Roberts
Introduction: I met Seth back in the early 1990s when we were both professors at the University of California. He sometimes came to the statistics department seminar and we got to talking about various things; in particular we shared an interest in statistical graphics. Much of my work in this direction eventually went toward the use of graphical displays to understand fitted models. Seth went in another direction and got interested in the role of exploratory data analysis in science, the idea that we could use graphs not just to test or even understand a model but also as the source of new hypotheses. We continued to discuss these issues over the years; see here , for example. At some point when we were at Berkeley the administration was encouraging the faculty to teach freshman seminars, and I had the idea of teaching a course on left-handedness. I’d just read the book by Stanley Coren and thought it would be fun to go through it with a class, chapter by chapter. But my knowledge of psych
5 0.95561212 584 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-22-“Are Wisconsin Public Employees Underpaid?”
Introduction: Amy Cohen points me to this blog by Jim Manzi, who writes: Ezra Klein and a variety of other thoughtful liberal bloggers have been pointing to an Economic Policy Institute analysis that they claim demonstrates that Wisconsin’s public employees, even after adjusting for benefits and hours worked, face a ” compensation penalty of 5% for choosing to work in the public sector.” Unfortunately, when you get under the hood, the study shows no such thing. . . . reading the actual paper by Jeffrey H. Keefe is instructive. Keefe took a representative sample of Wisconsin workers, and built a regression model that relates “fundamental personal characteristics and labor market skills” to compensation, and then compared public to private sector employees, after “controlling” for these factors. As far as I can see, the factors adjusted for were: years of education; years of experience; gender; race; ethnicity; disability; size of organization where the employee works; and, hours worked per
6 0.95390904 966 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-20-A qualified but incomplete thanks to Gregg Easterbrook’s editor at Reuters
7 0.953583 1691 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-25-Extreem p-values!
9 0.95238471 167 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-27-Why don’t more medical discoveries become cures?
10 0.95193809 1292 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-01-Colorless green facts asserted resolutely
11 0.95183063 2334 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-14-“The subtle funk of just a little poultry offal”
13 0.95124632 2013 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-08-What we need here is some peer review for statistical graphics
14 0.95118976 2234 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-05-Plagiarism, Arizona style
16 0.95077717 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
17 0.95076954 1012 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-16-Blog bribes!
18 0.95053875 635 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-29-Bayesian spam!
20 0.95039392 2113 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-25-Postdoc position on psychometrics and network modeling