andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2014 andrew_gelman_stats-2014-2239 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
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
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 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. [sent-1, score-1.702]
2 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. [sent-2, score-1.27]
3 All reviews are publicly available on our website, both at the pages of the journals and in an overview at www. [sent-3, score-0.784]
4 sc/reviews To make this venture a success, many reviews are needed. [sent-5, score-0.52]
5 We therefore would appreciate it very much if you could take a few minutes to visit our website www. [sent-6, score-0.634]
6 sc and share your recent review experiences with your colleagues. [sent-8, score-0.605]
7 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. [sent-9, score-1.455]
8 Thanks on behalf of the research community, Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits SciRev. [sent-10, score-0.134]
9 sc I know nothing about this but I thought I’d pass it on in case it interests any of you. [sent-11, score-0.195]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('scirev', 0.381), ('reviews', 0.317), ('review', 0.257), ('website', 0.25), ('experiences', 0.191), ('administer', 0.174), ('jeroen', 0.174), ('smits', 0.174), ('create', 0.167), ('share', 0.157), ('received', 0.147), ('manuscripts', 0.147), ('venture', 0.14), ('duration', 0.14), ('behalf', 0.134), ('visit', 0.123), ('overview', 0.121), ('submitting', 0.121), ('dear', 0.118), ('journal', 0.111), ('offers', 0.111), ('publicly', 0.11), ('select', 0.106), ('reveal', 0.101), ('informed', 0.099), ('peer', 0.099), ('pass', 0.099), ('comparable', 0.099), ('possibility', 0.098), ('efficient', 0.098), ('reactions', 0.097), ('interests', 0.096), ('thanks', 0.095), ('minutes', 0.091), ('colleague', 0.088), ('community', 0.088), ('pages', 0.087), ('therefore', 0.087), ('account', 0.086), ('appreciate', 0.083), ('success', 0.082), ('journals', 0.079), ('quality', 0.078), ('personal', 0.074), ('email', 0.071), ('available', 0.07), ('positive', 0.068), ('process', 0.066), ('many', 0.063), ('free', 0.063)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 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
2 0.22040409 836 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-03-Another plagiarism mystery
Introduction: Nick Cox comments : I heard of a leading U.S. statistician who delegates some of his book reviews to smart graduate students. The (very grateful) ex-student who told me said, in effect, it’s just his way of working. He makes the deal evident beforehand and makes it up to you in other ways by superb mentoring. I don’t understand this at all! If the student wrote the review, he or she should be sole author, no? The thing that puzzles me about this story is that if you’re a “leading statistician,” you don’t really get any credit for reviewing. If anything, people probably think you’re writing reviews as a way to avoid doing real work. If there’s some concern that the journal won’t publish a review under the sole authorship of obscure student X, they could always compromise and include the senior prof as a second author on the review (in which case the prof should at least read the review and vet it, but that can’t take much time). I guess what I’m saying is that it makes pe
Introduction: See page 179 here for Gowa’s review from 1986. And here’s my version (from 2008).
4 0.13295466 223 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-21-Statoverflow
Introduction: Skirant Vadali writes: I am writing to seek your help in building a community driven Q&A; website tentatively called called ‘Statistics Analysis’. I am neither a founder of this website nor do I have any financial stake in its success. By way of background to this website, please see Stackoverflow (http://stackoverflow.com/) and Mathoverflow (http://mathoverflow.net/). Stackoverflow is a Q&A; website targeted at software developers and is designed to help them ask questions and get answers from other developers. Mathoverflow is a Q&A; website targeted at research mathematicians and is designed to help them ask and answer questions from other mathematicians across the world. The success of both these sites in helping their respective communities is a strong indicator that sites designed along these lines are very useful. The company that runs Stackoverflow (who also host Mathoverflow.net) has recently decided to develop other community driven websites for various other topic are
5 0.13056555 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.
7 0.11657227 1641 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-27-The Möbius strip, or, marketing that is impervious to criticism
8 0.10924714 1912 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-24-Bayesian quality control?
10 0.10718633 1429 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-26-Our broken scholarly publishing system
11 0.10408951 1303 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-06-I’m skeptical about this skeptical article about left-handedness
12 0.097114362 2168 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-12-Things that I like that almost nobody else is interested in
13 0.096479192 1483 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-04-“Bestselling Author Caught Posting Positive Reviews of His Own Work on Amazon”
14 0.090678275 1928 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-06-How to think about papers published in low-grade journals?
15 0.090510875 350 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-18-Subtle statistical issues to be debated on TV.
16 0.090149336 18 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-$63,000 worth of abusive research . . . or just a really stupid waste of time?
17 0.086338066 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
18 0.085805304 866 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-23-Participate in a research project on combining information for prediction
19 0.082878634 1634 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-21-Two reviews of Nate Silver’s new book, from Kaiser Fung and Cathy O’Neil
20 0.080224343 1080 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Latest in blog advertising
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.107), (1, -0.058), (2, -0.066), (3, -0.042), (4, -0.011), (5, 0.009), (6, 0.019), (7, -0.074), (8, -0.047), (9, 0.009), (10, 0.076), (11, -0.055), (12, 0.018), (13, 0.006), (14, 0.008), (15, 0.0), (16, 0.042), (17, -0.002), (18, 0.03), (19, -0.006), (20, 0.032), (21, 0.031), (22, 0.07), (23, -0.05), (24, 0.028), (25, -0.005), (26, 0.079), (27, -0.001), (28, -0.001), (29, -0.002), (30, -0.096), (31, -0.027), (32, -0.012), (33, 0.07), (34, -0.034), (35, -0.014), (36, -0.008), (37, -0.023), (38, 0.039), (39, -0.013), (40, 0.019), (41, -0.002), (42, -0.016), (43, 0.021), (44, 0.037), (45, 0.009), (46, 0.002), (47, -0.035), (48, 0.01), (49, 0.008)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.98414928 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
2 0.80896467 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.
3 0.79269844 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 0.76824296 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 0.7126236 1429 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-26-Our broken scholarly publishing system
Introduction: I get about 10 requests to referee journal articles each week . At this point, even the saying No part is getting tiring. I think I’d much prefer Kriegeskorte’s system of post-publication review where whatever you write about a paper is open and available to all to read, and where you can devote your review efforts to papers worth reviewing (either because of their inherent quality or importance, or because they’ve been hyped and need to be corrected).
6 0.70222884 1872 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-27-More spam!
7 0.68363029 836 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-03-Another plagiarism mystery
8 0.67721593 28 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-12-Alert: Incompetent colleague wastes time of hardworking Wolfram Research publicist
9 0.67600799 1618 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-11-The consulting biz
10 0.65025127 2304 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-24-An open site for researchers to post and share papers
11 0.64902818 1916 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-The weirdest thing about the AJPH story
12 0.64751101 350 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-18-Subtle statistical issues to be debated on TV.
13 0.63034427 58 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-29-Stupid legal crap
14 0.61659807 18 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-$63,000 worth of abusive research . . . or just a really stupid waste of time?
15 0.60612851 2148 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Spam!
16 0.60021651 2111 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-23-Tables > figures yet again
17 0.59638321 1993 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-22-Improvements to Kindle Version of BDA3
18 0.59471411 343 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-?
19 0.59408855 1622 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-14-Can gambling addicts be identified in gambling venues?
20 0.59107715 866 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-23-Participate in a research project on combining information for prediction
topicId topicWeight
[(14, 0.023), (15, 0.078), (16, 0.064), (18, 0.059), (21, 0.049), (24, 0.15), (28, 0.023), (42, 0.016), (66, 0.022), (70, 0.023), (74, 0.095), (93, 0.019), (99, 0.272)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97753578 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
2 0.94314277 1612 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-08-The Case for More False Positives in Anti-doping Testing
Introduction: Kaiser Fung was ahead of the curve on Lance Armstrong: The media has gotten the statistics totally backwards. On the one hand, they faithfully report the colorful stories of athletes who fail drug tests pleading their innocence. (I have written about the Spanish cyclist Alberto Contador here.) On the other hand, they unquestioningly report athletes who claim “hundreds of negative tests” prove their honesty. Putting these two together implies that the media believes that negative test results are highly reliable while positive test results are unreliable. The reality is just the opposite. When an athlete tests positive, it’s almost sure that he/she has doped. Sure, most of the clean athletes will test negative but what is often missed is that the majority of dopers will also test negative. We don’t need to do any computation to see that this is true. In most major sports competitions, the proportion of tests declared positive is typically below 1%. If you believe that the pr
3 0.93627346 2261 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-23-Greg Mankiw’s utility function
Introduction: From 2010 : Greg Mankiw writes (link from Tyler Cowen ): Without any taxes, accepting that editor’s assignment would have yielded my children an extra $10,000. With taxes, it yields only $1,000. In effect, once the entire tax system is taken into account, my family’s marginal tax rate is about 90 percent. Is it any wonder that I [Mankiw] turn down most of the money-making opportunities I am offered? By contrast, without the tax increases advocated by the Obama administration, the numbers would look quite different. I would face a lower income tax rate, a lower Medicare tax rate, and no deduction phaseout or estate tax. Taking that writing assignment would yield my kids about $2,000. I would have twice the incentive to keep working. First, the good news Obama’s tax rates are much lower than Mankiw had anticipated! According to the above quote, his marginal tax rate is currently 80% but threatens to rise to 90%. But, in October 2008, Mankiw calculated that Obama’s
4 0.9318617 338 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-12-Update on Mankiw’s work incentives
Introduction: Tyler Cowen links to a blog by Greg Mankiw with further details on his argument that his anticipated 90% marginal tax rate will reduce his work level. Having already given my thoughts on Mankiw’s column, I merely have a few things to add/emphasize. 1. Cowen frames the arguments in terms of the “status” of George Bush, Greg Mankiw, Barack Obama, and their proposed policies. I hadn’t thought of the arguments as being about status, but I think I see what Cowen is saying. By being a well-known economist and having a column in the New York Times, Mankiw is trading some of his status for political advocacy (just as Krugman does, from the opposite direction). If Mankiw didn’t have the pre-existing status, I doubt this particular column would’ve made it into the newspaper. (Again, ditto with many of Krugman’s columns.) So it makes sense that arguments about the substance of Mankiw’s remarks will get tied into disputes about his status. 2. Neither Cowen nor Mankiw address
5 0.93094873 1292 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-01-Colorless green facts asserted resolutely
Introduction: Thomas Basbøll [yes, I've learned how to smoothly do this using alt-o] gives some writing advice : What gives a text presence is our commitment to asserting facts. We have to face the possibility that we may be wrong about them resolutely, and we do this by writing about them as though we are right. This and an earlier remark by Basbøll are closely related in my mind to predictive model checking and to Bayesian statistics : we make strong assumptions and then engage the data and the assumptions in a dialogue: assumptions + data -> inference, and we can then compare the inference to the data which can reveal problems with our model (or problems with the data, but that’s really problems with the model too, in this case problems with the model for the data). I like the idea that a condition for a story to be useful is that we put some belief into it. (One doesn’t put belief into a joke.) And also the converse, that thnking hard about a story and believing it can be the pre
6 0.93078691 140 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-10-SeeThroughNY
8 0.92909592 1967 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-04-What are the key assumptions of linear regression?
9 0.92810547 2353 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-30-I posted this as a comment on a sociology blog
10 0.92750621 1780 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-28-Racism!
11 0.92728662 902 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-12-The importance of style in academic writing
12 0.92719942 285 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-18-Fiction is not for tirades? Tell that to Saul Bellow!
14 0.92633843 2227 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-27-“What Can we Learn from the Many Labs Replication Project?”
15 0.92514467 1135 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-22-Advice on do-it-yourself stats education?
16 0.92496872 1578 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-15-Outta control political incorrectness
17 0.92474753 836 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-03-Another plagiarism mystery
18 0.92434037 1141 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-28-Using predator-prey models on the Canadian lynx series
19 0.9232465 1779 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-27-“Two Dogmas of Strong Objective Bayesianism”
20 0.92294657 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?