Wednesday, September 28, 2011

What's too far said he

Wegman chutzpah update. Andrew Gelman is seriously annoyed.

More to the point Wiley Computational Statistics has become the journal of last resort unless they change the editorial bored.


John said...

Is it "editorial bored" or "editorial board"?


I better look this up, on Wikipedia (where else?).

Jeffrey Davis said...

It looks like John Mashey plagiarized himself up there.

"The doctor turned to the other doctors with amazement. 'He
does see everything once!' he exclaimed. 'We made him all better.'"

-from the best catch there is.

John Mashey said...

? Wrong John, not me.

Anonymous said...

Wrong John? Let us investigate that for 18+ months.

Jeffrey Davis said...

I swear. There were 2 identical posts. Once.

TCO said...

Man, I want to physically box or wrestle my own side. they are such limpdicks.

And then after that "scary Eli", you still owe heat capicity responses from Deltoid from 2006. Don't think I forgot, little one.

David B. Benson said...

Is this Wonderland?

Anonymous said...

TCO could have figured out the answer to his heat capacity conundrum by now. 93% of the the heat absorbed is in the high heat capacity place. However, a very slow process, with a time constant of years or decades.

Rib smokin' bunny.

David B. Benson said...

You are all a pack of cards!

John Mashey said...

The weird thing is the mix of articles at WIRES:CS:
1) A majority look like good reviews by experts who have written on the topics often. Over at Gelman's, I noted an example with Dave Lilja writing on a topic in which I have some experience. If someone had asked me who should write that review, I would have pointed at him.

2) A few are Wegman/Said things that cannot have been reviewed in any rational way.

3) As of April, there were 156 articles:
4 were by Wegman/Said
14 were by Wegman students
8 involved other Wegman coauthors
1 by a Said coauthor
6 by others at GMU
33 total, 21% of the 156

6 by Scott
1 by a Scott student
2 by Scott coauthors
1 by Scott colleague at Rice
10 total, 6.4%

43 overall total, 27.6% of the 156.

That may be perfectly OK (Wegman & Scott are distinguished statisticians with many students and it is perfectly reasonable to ask some associates to write reviews) or some of these may be over the edge into crony-invites that helps boost "peer-reviewed" pub counts. Too many of the topics are ones where I don't have the expertise to know offhand.

I found 75 mentions of WIRES:CS articles in people's CV's.
3 invited
45 ambiguous (many CV's don't distinguish).
27 refereed/reviewed, including 5 of Scott's 6.

Anyway, my take is that most of the articles look pretty reasonable, although from outside, the quality of peer-review is unclear.

John Mashey said...

DC has the thorough, but suboptimal, story.

TCO said...

Nonny, yeah...but you should look at the original discussion. If anything your comment supports how I called out Eli.