Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> |

To |
"statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
Re: Re: st: replicating 2 X 2 data from a paper |

Date |
Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:11:28 +0100 |

I'd like to pick up on this point. As a (relatively) statistical reviewer, I've often experienced my advice being ignored by journals within my field (loosely, various Earth sciences and/or geography) -- even when I've been commissioned by editors who know me personally as more statistical than most in the territory. Protocols and procedures differ, but cogent statistical criticism may be ignored if 1. The critical reviewer is in a minority of one and other reviewers are very positive. (That does not mean that they understand the statistical issues; it's more common that they ignore them.) 2. The Editor can't distinguish what is damning from what is merely a preference for a different analysis. 3. The authors set up a smokescreen, e.g. accepting that the advice is good but arguing that what they are doing is easier for people to understand, the standard method, or on the advice of some unnamed person they trust. 4. There is a counter-argument. For example, statistical people hold very different views on the merits of working on logarithmic scales, non-parametric tests, etc., etc. Of course, this is just my version, and details of my experiences should remain obscure. Nick njcoxstata@gmail.com On 4 April 2013 01:30, David Hoaglin <dchoaglin@gmail.com> wrote: > As a statistician, I think you expect too much of the "statistical > reviewers" or of peer review more generally. Many papers that I read > contain rough edges and errors that, to my amazement, the authors and > the reviewers somehow failed to notice. * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/ * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**re: Re: st: replicating 2 X 2 data from a paper***From:*"Ariel Linden, DrPH" <ariel.linden@gmail.com>

**Re: Re: st: replicating 2 X 2 data from a paper***From:*David Hoaglin <dchoaglin@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Statistical significance of standardized rates** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: Bar graph with frequency** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Re: st: replicating 2 X 2 data from a paper** - Next by thread:
**re: Re: Re: st: replicating 2 X 2 data from a paper** - Index(es):