Saturday, June 29, 2013
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Assorted links
Posted on 9:24 AM by Unknown
1. Could it be worse? Well, yes.
2. Deconstructing Georgetown Mall in Ann Arbor.
3. I Dream of Jeannie (and so does Bill Clinton).
4. David Warsh spanks Paul Krugman
5. Steve Martin as the Great Flydini
Hat tip on #1 to Dan Black and on #5 to Jackie Smith
2. Deconstructing Georgetown Mall in Ann Arbor.
3. I Dream of Jeannie (and so does Bill Clinton).
4. David Warsh spanks Paul Krugman
5. Steve Martin as the Great Flydini
Hat tip on #1 to Dan Black and on #5 to Jackie Smith
Monday, May 27, 2013
Assorted links
Posted on 12:51 PM by Unknown
1. Cool pictures of old plane crashes.
2. A very Ann Arbor story involving obsessive house construction and opinionated neighbors.
3. I agree with Tyler that this is provoking and well worth reading.
4. What academic statisticians make.
5. Are banks more moral than porn stars?
#1 via the agitator. Hat tip on #5 to Charlie Brown.
2. A very Ann Arbor story involving obsessive house construction and opinionated neighbors.
3. I agree with Tyler that this is provoking and well worth reading.
4. What academic statisticians make.
5. Are banks more moral than porn stars?
#1 via the agitator. Hat tip on #5 to Charlie Brown.
Frontiers of academic research: metal music studies
Posted on 7:02 AM by Unknown
Check out the Society for Metal Music Studies and read an interview with a metal studies sociologist.
A taster from the interview:
Great stuff.
Hat tip: a speaker at this conference.
A taster from the interview:
Q: What, in your view, is the dividing line between “metal” and “rock”?I guess that means metal goes up to 11.
A: Metal is one louder.
Great stuff.
Hat tip: a speaker at this conference.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
On the bells in the Bell Tower at Michigan
Posted on 10:34 AM by Unknown
Peer review follies
Posted on 7:43 AM by Unknown
Abstract
A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability, accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has been very little direct research on these variables.
The present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations of submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.
With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as “serious methodological flaws.” A number of possible interpretations of these data are reviewed and evaluated.
Gated version of the full paper here.
Hat tip: John Bound
A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability, accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has been very little direct research on these variables.
The present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations of submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.
With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as “serious methodological flaws.” A number of possible interpretations of these data are reviewed and evaluated.
Gated version of the full paper here.
Hat tip: John Bound
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
