andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2014 andrew_gelman_stats-2014-2304 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
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
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 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. [sent-3, score-0.552]
2 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. [sent-4, score-0.328]
3 A commenter writes that the website says, “Fee for publication on the ScienceOpen platform is $800. [sent-10, score-0.262]
4 Included in this fee are up to 2 article revisions within 12 months. [sent-11, score-0.272]
5 Grossman replied as follows: My statement still holds and will be valid in the future as I mentioned: all services and functionalities of the ScienceOpen. [sent-18, score-0.535]
6 com site which have been accessible since last December are free and will stay free for all users as mentioned. [sent-19, score-0.75]
7 The issue which has been raised by the commenter focuses on a forthcoming new feature of the site which is not available so far however. [sent-22, score-0.367]
8 Starting May 6 we are going to offer a full package of publishing services which will enable researchers to publish their work as real “publication” open access. [sent-23, score-0.616]
9 Their work will for example receive a DOI to make it citable, our editorial will check the manuscript and we will provide a full copyediting and typesetting to prepare a printable and electronically accessible version of that article. [sent-24, score-0.2]
10 For this supplementary and probably valuable services only we are going to charge a processing fee of USD 800 as it is usual for all other open accees publishing services and publishers I now. [sent-25, score-1.158]
11 Having read the comment on your post I disagree with the valuation that USD 800 to posting an article is “a lot of money”. [sent-26, score-0.182]
12 Having analyzed the pricing of single article processing fees (APCs) for open access publishing we find a pricing range between USD 750 and USD 5,000 with a median APC far above USD 1,000 for most publishers. [sent-27, score-0.816]
13 html In conclusion I want to make sure that we understand the service above as that what it is: a supplementary service which will engage some further effort from our site (as for other open access publishers) and for which we have to pay our editors and technical vendors, too. [sent-32, score-0.845]
14 Nevertheless, all features to access, comment or review any article at ScienceOpen are free; all workspace functionalities to support researchers to discuss and draft their new papers are free; all feature to set-up or join groups and private collaborations are free. [sent-33, score-0.851]
15 So I still feel totally comfortable with the statement that ScienceOpen is a “free platform” for all these functionalities as they have been established since the first launch. [sent-34, score-0.333]
16 Publishing a citable paper and receiving services as author is a new and supplementary service which is required to fulfill the demand of many researchers to completely substitute classical publishing in journals. [sent-35, score-0.876]
17 It would be great if you will have a chance to share your feedback about the ScienceOpen site in general with me. [sent-36, score-0.399]
18 Very probably you will have discovered a lot of features and I am eager to learn which features you like or which functionalities you would prefer to add to the site in future. [sent-37, score-0.759]
19 Thanks also for sharing your thoughts with me and others to make the site more popular. [sent-38, score-0.231]
20 We want to build a site for its users and not for us, this is why I personally appreciate comments and feedback so much. [sent-39, score-0.381]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('scienceopen', 0.417), ('usd', 0.316), ('functionalities', 0.278), ('site', 0.231), ('services', 0.202), ('grossman', 0.19), ('free', 0.185), ('publishing', 0.155), ('fee', 0.153), ('supplementary', 0.153), ('access', 0.141), ('citable', 0.139), ('platform', 0.138), ('open', 0.124), ('alexander', 0.107), ('pricing', 0.102), ('service', 0.098), ('features', 0.097), ('december', 0.096), ('publishers', 0.089), ('share', 0.086), ('draft', 0.085), ('feedback', 0.082), ('accessible', 0.081), ('processing', 0.08), ('researchers', 0.077), ('users', 0.068), ('commenter', 0.068), ('feature', 0.068), ('comment', 0.064), ('accessed', 0.063), ('mrs', 0.063), ('doi', 0.063), ('copyediting', 0.063), ('article', 0.062), ('workspace', 0.06), ('apc', 0.06), ('collaborations', 0.06), ('offer', 0.058), ('revisions', 0.057), ('lot', 0.056), ('publication', 0.056), ('version', 0.056), ('statement', 0.055), ('uc', 0.053), ('fulfill', 0.052), ('please', 0.052), ('summarized', 0.051), ('money', 0.05), ('fees', 0.05)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 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
2 0.20371121 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!
3 0.11893588 2148 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Spam!
Introduction: This one totally faked me out at first. It was an email from “Nick Bagnall” that began: Dear Dr. Gelman, I made contact last year regarding your work in the CMG: Reconstructing Climate from Tree Ring Data project. We are about to start producing the 2014 edition and I wanted to discuss this with you as we still remain keen to feature your work. Research Media are producing a special publication in February of 2014, within this report we will be working with a small selected number of PI’s with a focus on geosciences, atmospheric and geospace sciences and earth Sciences.. At this point, I’m thinking: Hmmm, I don’t remember this guy, is this some sort of collaborative project that I’d forgotten about? The message then continues: The publication is called International Innovation . . . Huh? This doesn’t sound so good. The email then goes on with some very long lists, and then finally the kicker: The total cost for each article produced in this report is fixed a
4 0.10999922 1976 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-10-The birthday problem
Introduction: A friend with a baby who was born a couple weeks late commented that he would’ve liked a website that gave an estimated due date that was something more accurate than the usual “last menstrual period + 40 weeks.” I did a quick google and found this and this . Based on their descriptions of what information they use, the first site looks like it might be good, and the second site looks iffy. But I don’t really know.
5 0.10861236 1820 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-23-Foundation for Open Access Statistics
Introduction: Now here’s a foundation I (Bob) can get behind: Foundation for Open Access Statistics (FOAS) Their mission is to “promote free software, open access publishing, and reproducible research in statistics.” To me, that’s like supporting motherhood and apple pie ! FOAS spun out of and is partially designed to support the Journal of Statistical Software (aka JSS , aka JStatSoft ). I adore JSS because it (a) is open access, (b) publishes systems papers on statistical software, (c) has fast reviewing turnaround times, and (d) is free for authors and readers. One of the next items on my to-do list is to write up the Stan modeling language and submit it to JSS . As a not-for-profit with no visible source of income, they are quite sensibly asking for donations (don’t complain — it beats $3K author fees or not being able to read papers).
6 0.10552451 919 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-21-Least surprising headline of the year
7 0.10097905 1915 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-Huh?
8 0.097720906 1916 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-The weirdest thing about the AJPH story
9 0.096620202 1922 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-02-They want me to send them free material and pay for the privilege
10 0.09602277 793 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-09-R on the cloud
11 0.088019133 2245 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-12-More on publishing in journals
12 0.087520018 199 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-11-Note to semi-spammers
13 0.083108023 2075 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-23-PubMed Commons: A system for commenting on articles in PubMed
14 0.081470363 1871 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-27-Annals of spam
15 0.08092317 839 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-04-To commenters who are trying to sell something
16 0.080518492 1175 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-19-Factual – a new place to find data
17 0.079752907 1012 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-16-Blog bribes!
18 0.078970052 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
19 0.077507317 1010 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-14-“Free energy” and economic resources
20 0.075809382 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.138), (1, -0.065), (2, -0.067), (3, -0.025), (4, 0.006), (5, 0.011), (6, 0.021), (7, -0.094), (8, -0.028), (9, -0.031), (10, 0.024), (11, -0.035), (12, 0.03), (13, 0.03), (14, -0.027), (15, 0.043), (16, 0.025), (17, -0.017), (18, -0.023), (19, 0.039), (20, 0.052), (21, 0.019), (22, 0.042), (23, -0.033), (24, -0.026), (25, 0.005), (26, 0.04), (27, 0.012), (28, -0.0), (29, 0.021), (30, -0.021), (31, -0.05), (32, 0.061), (33, -0.007), (34, -0.059), (35, 0.005), (36, 0.021), (37, 0.011), (38, 0.027), (39, 0.011), (40, 0.034), (41, -0.027), (42, 0.009), (43, 0.014), (44, -0.001), (45, 0.006), (46, -0.018), (47, -0.048), (48, -0.032), (49, -0.013)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97116315 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
2 0.81483543 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
3 0.8055234 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 0.77633244 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
5 0.77596897 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
6 0.76915991 1915 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-27-Huh?
7 0.76229286 880 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-30-Annals of spam
8 0.75250721 199 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-11-Note to semi-spammers
9 0.74291557 1820 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-23-Foundation for Open Access Statistics
10 0.73953313 1012 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-16-Blog bribes!
11 0.73820072 1872 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-27-More spam!
12 0.72434199 1871 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-27-Annals of spam
13 0.72268575 2148 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Spam!
14 0.71959007 2239 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-09-Reviewing the peer review process?
15 0.71742982 577 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-16-Annals of really really stupid spam
16 0.67830735 1434 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-29-FindTheData.org
17 0.67729479 1240 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-02-Blogads update
18 0.67424715 919 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-21-Least surprising headline of the year
20 0.66232258 1618 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-11-The consulting biz
topicId topicWeight
[(4, 0.01), (7, 0.11), (9, 0.012), (15, 0.062), (16, 0.091), (21, 0.025), (24, 0.105), (41, 0.045), (63, 0.025), (85, 0.036), (86, 0.02), (99, 0.298)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.97205245 1525 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-08-Ethical standards in different data communities
Introduction: I opened the paper today and saw this from Paul Krugman, on Jack Welch, the former chairman of General Electric, who posted an assertion on Twitter that the [recent unemployment data] had been cooked to help President Obama’s re-election campaign. His claim was quickly picked up by right-wing pundits and media personalities. It was nonsense, of course. Job numbers are prepared by professional civil servants, at an agency that currently has no political appointees. But then maybe Mr. Welch — under whose leadership G.E. reported remarkably smooth earnings growth, with none of the short-term fluctuations you might have expected (fluctuations that reappeared under his successor) — doesn’t know how hard it would be to cook the jobs data. I was curious so I googled *general electric historical earnings*. It was surprisingly difficult to find the numbers! Most of the links just went back to 2011, or to 2008. Eventually I came across this blog by Barry Ritholtz that showed this
same-blog 2 0.96743006 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 0.96631646 721 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-20-Non-statistical thinking in the US foreign policy establishment
Introduction: I’m a few weeks behind in my New Yorker reading and so just recently read this fascinating article by Ryan Lizza on the current administration’s foreign policy. He gives some insights into the transformation Obama from antiwar candidate to a president conducting three wars. Speaking as a statistician, though, what grabbed my eye was a doctrine of journalist/professor/policymaker Samantha Power. Lizza writes: In 2002, after graduating from Harvard Law School, she wrote “A Problem from Hell,” which surveyed the grim history of six genocides committed in the twentieth century. Propounding a liberal-interventionist view, Power argued that “mass killing” on the scale of Rwanda or Bosnia must be prevented by other nations, including the United States. She wrote that America and its allies rarely have perfect information about when a regime is about to commit genocide; a President, therefore, must have “a bias toward belief” that massacres are imminent. From a statistical perspect
4 0.9592346 1603 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-03-Somebody listened to me!
Introduction: Several months ago, I wrote : One challenge, though, is that uncovering the problem [of scientific fraud] and forcing the retraction is a near-thankless job. That’s one reason I don’t mind if Uri Simonsohn is treated as some sort of hero or superstar for uncovering multiple cases of research fraud. Some people might feel there’s something unseemly about Simonsohn doing this . . . OK, fine, but let’s talk incentives. If retractions are a good thing, and fraudsters and plagiarists are not generally going to retract on their own, then somebody’s going to have to do the hard work of discovering, exposing, and confronting scholarly misconduct. If these discoverers, exposers, and confronters are going to be attacked back by their targets (which would be natural enough) and they’re going to be attacked by the fraudsters’ friends and colleagues (also natural) and even have their work disparaged by outsiders who think they’re going too far, then, hey, they need some incentives in the othe
5 0.94890606 402 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-09-Kaggle: forecasting competitions in the classroom
Introduction: Anthony Goldbloom writes: For those who haven’t come across Kaggle, we are a new platform for data prediction competitions. Companies and researchers put up a dataset and a problem and data scientists compete to produce the best solutions. We’ve just launched a new initiative called Kaggle in Class, allowing instructors to host competitions for their students. Competitions are a neat way to engage students, giving them the opportunity to put into practice what they learn. The platform offers live leaderboards, so students get instant feedback on the accuracy of their work. And since competitions are judged on objective criteria (predictions are compared with outcomes), the platform offers unique assessment opportunities. The first Kaggle in Class competition is being hosted by Stanford University’s Stats 202 class and requires students to predict the price of different wines based on vintage, country, ratings and other information. Those interested in hosting a competition f
6 0.94665897 226 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-23-More on those L.A. Times estimates of teacher effectiveness
7 0.94615281 1194 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-04-Multilevel modeling even when you’re not interested in predictions for new groups
9 0.94029188 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
10 0.93874359 1699 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-31-Fowlerpalooza!
11 0.93845582 975 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-27-Caffeine keeps your Mac awake
12 0.93092787 1878 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-31-How to fix the tabloids? Toward replicable social science research
13 0.93073362 2137 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-17-Replication backlash
15 0.92888999 277 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-14-In an introductory course, when does learning occur?
17 0.92718524 2227 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-27-“What Can we Learn from the Many Labs Replication Project?”
18 0.92709208 1591 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-26-Politics as an escape hatch
19 0.92666739 2165 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-09-San Fernando Valley cityscapes: An example of the benefits of fractal devastation?
20 0.92661136 2353 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-30-I posted this as a comment on a sociology blog