andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2014 andrew_gelman_stats-2014-2278 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: The Association for Psychological Science, the leading organization of research psychologists, announced a long-awaited new journal, Speculations on Psychological Science . From the official APS press release: Speculations on Psychological Science, the flagship journal of the Association for Psychological Science, will publish cutting-edge research articles, short reports, and research reports spanning the entire spectrum of the science of psychology. We anticipate that Speculations on Psychological Science will be the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology. We recognize that many of the most noteworthy published claims in psychology and related fields are not well supported by data, hence the need for a journal for the publication of such exciting speculations without misleading claims of certainty. - Sigmund Watson, Prof. (Ret.) Miskatonic University, and editor-in-chief, Speculations on Psychological Science I applaud this development. Indeed, I’ve been talking ab
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 The Association for Psychological Science, the leading organization of research psychologists, announced a long-awaited new journal, Speculations on Psychological Science . [sent-1, score-0.423]
2 From the official APS press release: Speculations on Psychological Science, the flagship journal of the Association for Psychological Science, will publish cutting-edge research articles, short reports, and research reports spanning the entire spectrum of the science of psychology. [sent-2, score-1.57]
3 We anticipate that Speculations on Psychological Science will be the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology. [sent-3, score-0.639]
4 We recognize that many of the most noteworthy published claims in psychology and related fields are not well supported by data, hence the need for a journal for the publication of such exciting speculations without misleading claims of certainty. [sent-4, score-2.002]
5 ) Miskatonic University, and editor-in-chief, Speculations on Psychological Science I applaud this development. [sent-7, score-0.115]
6 Indeed, I’ve been talking about such a new journal for awhile now. [sent-8, score-0.432]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('speculations', 0.542), ('psychological', 0.451), ('science', 0.26), ('journal', 0.246), ('sigmund', 0.153), ('association', 0.149), ('watson', 0.145), ('flagship', 0.145), ('noteworthy', 0.138), ('spanning', 0.138), ('reports', 0.126), ('ranked', 0.121), ('announced', 0.119), ('anticipate', 0.117), ('applaud', 0.115), ('claims', 0.114), ('spectrum', 0.11), ('research', 0.091), ('official', 0.089), ('psychologists', 0.087), ('organization', 0.087), ('supported', 0.086), ('exciting', 0.086), ('highest', 0.085), ('release', 0.084), ('misleading', 0.082), ('press', 0.079), ('recognize', 0.076), ('fields', 0.076), ('awhile', 0.074), ('hence', 0.074), ('leading', 0.071), ('empirical', 0.07), ('entire', 0.07), ('publication', 0.068), ('publish', 0.066), ('short', 0.059), ('psychology', 0.059), ('related', 0.058), ('articles', 0.057), ('talking', 0.057), ('new', 0.055), ('university', 0.055), ('indeed', 0.05), ('published', 0.044), ('without', 0.04), ('need', 0.039), ('well', 0.032), ('many', 0.028), ('ve', 0.026)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 2278 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-01-Association for Psychological Science announces a new journal
Introduction: The Association for Psychological Science, the leading organization of research psychologists, announced a long-awaited new journal, Speculations on Psychological Science . From the official APS press release: Speculations on Psychological Science, the flagship journal of the Association for Psychological Science, will publish cutting-edge research articles, short reports, and research reports spanning the entire spectrum of the science of psychology. We anticipate that Speculations on Psychological Science will be the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology. We recognize that many of the most noteworthy published claims in psychology and related fields are not well supported by data, hence the need for a journal for the publication of such exciting speculations without misleading claims of certainty. - Sigmund Watson, Prof. (Ret.) Miskatonic University, and editor-in-chief, Speculations on Psychological Science I applaud this development. Indeed, I’ve been talking ab
Introduction: Are women three times more likely to wear red or pink when they are most fertile? No, probably not. But here’s how hardworking researchers, prestigious scientific journals, and gullible journalists have been fooled into believing so. The paper I’ll be talking about appeared online this month in Psychological Science, the flagship journal of the Association for Psychological Science, which represents the serious, research-focused (as opposed to therapeutic) end of the psychology profession. . . . In focusing on this (literally) colorful example, I don’t mean to be singling out this particular research team for following what are, unfortunately, standard practices in experimental research. Indeed, that this article was published in a leading journal is evidence that its statistical methods were considered acceptable. Statistics textbooks do warn against multiple comparisons, but there is a tendency for researchers to consider any given comparison alone without considering it as one o
3 0.17562872 1878 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-31-How to fix the tabloids? Toward replicable social science research
Introduction: This seems to be the topic of the week. Yesterday I posted on the sister blog some further thoughts on those “Psychological Science” papers on menstrual cycles, biceps size, and political attitudes, tied to a horrible press release from the journal Psychological Science hyping the biceps and politics study. Then I was pointed to these suggestions from Richard Lucas and M. Brent Donnellan have on improving the replicability and reproducibility of research published in the Journal of Research in Personality: It goes without saying that editors of scientific journals strive to publish research that is not only theoretically interesting but also methodologically rigorous. The goal is to select papers that advance the field. Accordingly, editors want to publish findings that can be reproduced and replicated by other scientists. Unfortunately, there has been a recent “crisis in confidence” among psychologists about the quality of psychological research (Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012)
4 0.15196691 1860 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-17-How can statisticians help psychologists do their research better?
Introduction: I received two emails yesterday on related topics. First, Stephen Olivier pointed me to this post by Daniel Lakens, who wrote the following open call to statisticians: You would think that if you are passionate about statistics, then you want to help people to calculate them correctly in any way you can. . . . you’d think some statisticians would be interested in helping a poor mathematically challenged psychologist out by offering some practical advice. I’m the right person to ask this question, since I actually have written a lot of material that helps psychologists (and others) with their data analysis. But there clearly are communication difficulties, in that my work and that of other statisticians hasn’t reached Lakens. Sometimes the contributions of statisticians are made indirectly. For example, I wrote Bayesian Data Analysis, and then Kruschke wrote Doing Bayesian Data Analysis. Our statistics book made it possible for Kruschke to write his excellent book for psycholo
5 0.14841235 439 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-30-Of psychology research and investment tips
Introduction: A few days after “ Dramatic study shows participants are affected by psychological phenomena from the future ,” (see here ) the British Psychological Society follows up with “ Can psychology help combat pseudoscience? .” Somehow I’m reminded of that bit of financial advice which says, if you want to save some money, your best investment is to pay off your credit card bills.
6 0.14662074 2215 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-17-The Washington Post reprints university press releases without editing them
8 0.11927658 1122 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-16-“Groundbreaking or Definitive? Journals Need to Pick One”
9 0.11880188 1765 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-16-Recently in the sister blog
10 0.1182214 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
11 0.11574571 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
13 0.11201943 2301 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-22-Ticket to Baaaaarf
14 0.11040746 2248 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-15-Problematic interpretations of confidence intervals
17 0.10240562 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
18 0.10186587 1833 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-30-“Tragedy of the science-communication commons”
19 0.10100047 120 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-30-You can’t put Pandora back in the box
20 0.10055494 838 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-04-Retraction Watch
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.099), (1, -0.066), (2, -0.08), (3, -0.131), (4, -0.1), (5, -0.019), (6, -0.07), (7, -0.099), (8, -0.092), (9, 0.042), (10, 0.063), (11, 0.024), (12, -0.033), (13, 0.019), (14, -0.017), (15, -0.041), (16, -0.004), (17, 0.009), (18, 0.002), (19, -0.03), (20, 0.019), (21, -0.02), (22, 0.001), (23, -0.008), (24, -0.013), (25, 0.007), (26, 0.017), (27, -0.019), (28, -0.003), (29, -0.023), (30, -0.037), (31, -0.05), (32, -0.023), (33, -0.015), (34, 0.008), (35, 0.023), (36, -0.022), (37, 0.016), (38, -0.04), (39, -0.029), (40, -0.048), (41, 0.032), (42, 0.015), (43, 0.01), (44, -0.018), (45, 0.047), (46, -0.012), (47, 0.06), (48, -0.041), (49, 0.039)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.9919163 2278 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-01-Association for Psychological Science announces a new journal
Introduction: The Association for Psychological Science, the leading organization of research psychologists, announced a long-awaited new journal, Speculations on Psychological Science . From the official APS press release: Speculations on Psychological Science, the flagship journal of the Association for Psychological Science, will publish cutting-edge research articles, short reports, and research reports spanning the entire spectrum of the science of psychology. We anticipate that Speculations on Psychological Science will be the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology. We recognize that many of the most noteworthy published claims in psychology and related fields are not well supported by data, hence the need for a journal for the publication of such exciting speculations without misleading claims of certainty. - Sigmund Watson, Prof. (Ret.) Miskatonic University, and editor-in-chief, Speculations on Psychological Science I applaud this development. Indeed, I’ve been talking ab
Introduction: Are women three times more likely to wear red or pink when they are most fertile? No, probably not. But here’s how hardworking researchers, prestigious scientific journals, and gullible journalists have been fooled into believing so. The paper I’ll be talking about appeared online this month in Psychological Science, the flagship journal of the Association for Psychological Science, which represents the serious, research-focused (as opposed to therapeutic) end of the psychology profession. . . . In focusing on this (literally) colorful example, I don’t mean to be singling out this particular research team for following what are, unfortunately, standard practices in experimental research. Indeed, that this article was published in a leading journal is evidence that its statistical methods were considered acceptable. Statistics textbooks do warn against multiple comparisons, but there is a tendency for researchers to consider any given comparison alone without considering it as one o
3 0.84358454 1122 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-16-“Groundbreaking or Definitive? Journals Need to Pick One”
Introduction: Sanjay Srivastava writes : As long as a journal pursues a strategy of publishing “wow” studies, it will inevitably contain more unreplicable findings and unsupportable conclusions than equally rigorous but more “boring” journals. Groundbreaking will always be higher-risk. And definitive will be the territory of journals that publish meta-analyses and reviews. . . . Most conclusions, even those in peer-reviewed papers in rigorous journals, should be regarded as tentative at best; but press releases and other public communication rarely convey that. . . . His message to all of us: Our standard response to a paper in Science, Nature, or Psychological Science should be “wow, that’ll be really interesting if it replicates.” And in our teaching and our engagement with the press and public, we need to make clear why that is the most enthusiastic response we can justify.
Introduction: Somebody points me to this horrifying exposé by Paul Raeburn on a new series by the Washington Post where they reprint press releases as if they are actual news. And the gimmick is, the reason why it’s appearing on this blog, is that these are university press releases on science stories . What could possibly go wrong there? After all, Steve Chaplin, a self-identified “science-writing PIO from an R1,” writes in a comment to Raeburn’s post: We write about peer-reviewed research accepted for publication or published by the world’s leading scientific journals after that research has been determined to be legitimate. Repeatability of new research is a publication requisite. I emphasized that last sentence myself because it was such a stunner. Do people really think that??? So I guess what he’s saying is, they don’t do press releases for articles from Psychological Science or the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . But I wonder how the profs in the psych d
5 0.78994703 762 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-13-How should journals handle replication studies?
Introduction: Sanjay Srivastava reports : Recently Ben Goldacre wrote about a group of researchers (Stuart Ritchie, Chris French, and Richard Wiseman) whose null replication of 3 experiments from the infamous Bem ESP paper was rejected by JPSP – the same journal that published Bem’s paper. Srivastava recognizes that JPSP does not usually publish replications but this is a different story because it’s an anti-replication. Here’s the paradox: - From a scientific point of view, the Ritchie et al. results are boring. To find out that there’s no evidence for ESP . . . that adds essentially zero to our scientific understanding. What next, a paper demonstrating that pigeons can fly higher than chickens? Maybe an article in the Journal of the Materials Research Society demonstrating that diamonds can scratch marble but not the reverse?? - But from a science-communication perspective, the null replication is a big deal because it adds credence to my hypothesis that the earlier ESP claims
6 0.76934105 1878 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-31-How to fix the tabloids? Toward replicable social science research
7 0.76587331 838 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-04-Retraction Watch
8 0.75181693 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
10 0.73490137 1321 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-15-A statistical research project: Weeding out the fraudulent citations
11 0.71922982 1118 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-14-A model rejection letter
12 0.71735728 2268 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-26-New research journal on observational studies
13 0.70462185 1928 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-06-How to think about papers published in low-grade journals?
14 0.70327598 1291 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-30-Systematic review of publication bias in studies on publication bias
15 0.6955815 2179 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-20-The AAA Tranche of Subprime Science
16 0.6919632 1998 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-25-A new Bem theory
17 0.67662257 1911 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-23-AI Stats conference on Stan etc.
19 0.66971564 834 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-01-I owe it all to the haters
20 0.66347128 1055 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-13-Data sharing update
topicId topicWeight
[(2, 0.074), (5, 0.038), (9, 0.015), (10, 0.033), (15, 0.218), (22, 0.015), (24, 0.023), (49, 0.024), (57, 0.023), (68, 0.026), (76, 0.125), (89, 0.033), (99, 0.217)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.93220454 2278 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-01-Association for Psychological Science announces a new journal
Introduction: The Association for Psychological Science, the leading organization of research psychologists, announced a long-awaited new journal, Speculations on Psychological Science . From the official APS press release: Speculations on Psychological Science, the flagship journal of the Association for Psychological Science, will publish cutting-edge research articles, short reports, and research reports spanning the entire spectrum of the science of psychology. We anticipate that Speculations on Psychological Science will be the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology. We recognize that many of the most noteworthy published claims in psychology and related fields are not well supported by data, hence the need for a journal for the publication of such exciting speculations without misleading claims of certainty. - Sigmund Watson, Prof. (Ret.) Miskatonic University, and editor-in-chief, Speculations on Psychological Science I applaud this development. Indeed, I’ve been talking ab
2 0.88018286 1394 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-27-99!
Introduction: Those of you who know what I’m talking about, know what I’m talking about.
3 0.86721593 908 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-14-Type M errors in the lab
Introduction: Jeff points us to this news article by Asher Mullard: Bayer halts nearly two-thirds of its target-validation projects because in-house experimental findings fail to match up with published literature claims, finds a first-of-a-kind analysis on data irreproducibility. An unspoken industry rule alleges that at least 50% of published studies from academic laboratories cannot be repeated in an industrial setting, wrote venture capitalist Bruce Booth in a recent blog post. A first-of-a-kind analysis of Bayer’s internal efforts to validate ‘new drug target’ claims now not only supports this view but suggests that 50% may be an underestimate; the company’s in-house experimental data do not match literature claims in 65% of target-validation projects, leading to project discontinuation. . . . Khusru Asadullah, Head of Target Discovery at Bayer, and his colleagues looked back at 67 target-validation projects, covering the majority of Bayer’s work in oncology, women’s health and cardiov
4 0.85721642 1624 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-15-New prize on causality in statstistics education
Introduction: Judea Pearl writes: Can you post the announcement below on your blog? And, by all means, if you find heresy in my interview with Ron Wasserstein, feel free to criticize it with your readers. I responded that I’m not religious, so he’ll have to look for someone else if he’s looking for findings of heresy. I did, however, want to share his announcement: The American Statistical Association has announced a new Prize , “Causality in Statistics Education”, aimed to encourage the teaching of basic causal inference in introductory statistics courses. The motivations for the prize are discussed in an interview I [Pearl] gave to Ron Wasserstein. I hope readers of this list will participate, either by innovating new tools for teaching causation or by nominating candidates who deserve the prize. And speaking about education, Bryant and I [Pearl] have revised our survey of econometrics textbooks, and would love to hear your suggestions on how to restore causal inference to e
5 0.8494333 834 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-01-I owe it all to the haters
Introduction: Sometimes when I submit an article to a journal it is accepted right away or with minor alterations. But many of my favorite articles were rejected or had to go through an exhausting series of revisions. For example, this influential article had a very hostile referee and we had to seriously push the journal editor to accept it. This one was rejected by one or two journals before finally appearing with discussion. This paper was rejected by the American Political Science Review with no chance of revision and we had to publish it in the British Journal of Political Science, which was a bit odd given that the article was 100% about American politics. And when I submitted this instant classic (actually at the invitation of the editor), the referees found it to be trivial, and the editor did me the favor of publishing it but only by officially labeling it as a discussion of another article that appeared in the same issue. Some of my most influential papers were accepted right
6 0.84929317 439 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-30-Of psychology research and investment tips
8 0.81314802 1541 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-19-Statistical discrimination again
9 0.80986625 1081 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-24-Statistical ethics violation
10 0.80684876 1794 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-09-My talks in DC and Baltimore this week
11 0.80149817 133 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-08-Gratuitous use of “Bayesian Statistics,” a branding issue?
12 0.79965967 1908 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-21-Interpreting interactions in discrete-data regression
13 0.78919959 1833 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-30-“Tragedy of the science-communication commons”
14 0.78192788 945 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-06-W’man < W’pedia, again
15 0.77221775 1998 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-25-A new Bem theory
16 0.76545829 1888 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-08-New Judea Pearl journal of causal inference
17 0.75953954 2014 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-09-False memories and statistical analysis
18 0.7583251 1393 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-The reverse-journal-submission system
19 0.75772917 2268 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-26-New research journal on observational studies
20 0.75559932 762 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-13-How should journals handle replication studies?