I shall be concerned with the foundations of the subject. But in case it should be thought that this means I am not here strongly concerned with practical applications, let me say right away that confusion about the foundations of the subject is responsible, in my opinion, for much of the misuse of the statistics […]
Colleen Flaherty asks: Do you get asked to peer review a lot? I’m guessing you do… This new very short paper says it’s not a crisis, though, since only the people who publish the most are getting asked to review a lot… The authors pose two solutions: either we need to “democratize” the system of […]
The post Mouse Among the Cats appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.
Harry Crane and Ryan Martin write: I’m writing to call your attention to a new peer review and publication platform, called RESEARCHERS.ONE, that I have recently launched with Ryan Martin. The platform can be found at https://www.researchers.one. Given past discussions I’ve seen on your website, I think this new platform might interest you and your […]
Paul Alper writes: Your blog often contains criticisms of articles which get too much publicity. Here is an instance of the obverse (inverse? reverse?) where a worthy publication dealing with a serious medical condition is virtually ignored. From Michael Joyce at the ever-reliable and informative Healthnewsreview.org: Prostate cancer screening: massive study gets minimal coverage. Why? […]
The post What if a big study is done and nobody reports it? appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.
A colleague sent along this article and writes: Check out table 4. this is ERC funded research (the very best of European science get this money). OK, now I was curious, so I scrolled through to table 4. Here it is: Yup, it’s horrible. I don’t know that I’d call it cargo cult science at […]
The post “Check out table 4.” appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.
I’m talking about a speciﬁc, extra type of integrity that is [beyond] not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. (Feynman 1974/1985, p. 387) It is easy to lie with statistics. Or so the cliché goes. It is also very diﬃcult […]
There often seems to be an attitude among scientists and journal editors that, if a research team has gone to the trouble of ensuring rigor in some part of their study (whether in the design, the data collection, or the analysis, but typically rigor is associated with “p less than .05” and some random assignment […]
We’re often modeling non-monotonic functions. For example, performance at just about any task increases with age (babies can’t do much!) and then eventually decreases (dead people can’t do much either!). Here’s an example from a few years ago: A function g(x) that increases and then decreases can be modeled by a quadratic, or some more […]
Aki points us to this paper by Tore Selland Kleppe, which begins: Dynamically rescaled Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (DRHMC) is introduced as a computationally fast and easily implemented method for performing full Bayesian analysis in hierarchical statistical models. The method relies on introducing a modified parameterisation so that the re-parameterised target distribution has close to constant […]
Someone who wishes to remain anonymous points to a new study of David Yeager et al. on educational mindset interventions (link from Alex Tabarrok) and asks: On the blog we talk a lot about bad practice and what not to do. Might this be an example of how *to do* things? Or did they just […]
The post The gaps between 1, 2, and 3 are just too large. appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.