A Survey of Social Science Journal Editors for Behind-the-Scenes Data on the Publication Process

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine ◽  
Richard Tewksbury
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Science Journal ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Social Science Journal

Multiple regression and nonlinear models

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Gelman ◽  
Deborah Nolan
Keyword(s):  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Multiple Regression ◽  
Nonlinear Model ◽  
Nonlinear Models ◽  
Good Strategy ◽  
Science Journal ◽  
Golf Putting ◽  
Social Science Journal ◽  
To Come

This chapter covers multiple regression and links statistical inference to general topics such as lurking variables that arose earlier. Many examples can be used to illustrate multiple regression, but we have found it useful to come to class prepared with a specific example, with computer output (since our students learn to run the regressions on the computer). We have found it is a good strategy to simply use a regression analysis from some published source (e.g., a social science journal) and go through the model and its interpretation with the class, asking students how the regression results would have to differ in order for the study’s conclusions to change. The chapter includes examples that revisit the simple linear model of height and income, involve the class in models of exam scores, and fit a nonlinear model (for more advanced classes) for golf putting.

Of Illegal Procedure and Other Impediments to Progress

1995 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Henige
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Science Journal ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Critical Response ◽  
Social Science Journal ◽  
Inherent Quality ◽  
Published Paper ◽  
As If

Over a period of several months in mid-1994 I became aware, as if by chain-reaction accident, of four instances in which scholarly journals declined to accept critiques of articles that had previously appeared in them. Interestingly, in none of the four cases was the critique rejected on the grounds of inherent quality, and in all cases the critique was considerably shorter than the original article. In one case a social science journal rejected a submission simply as “too polemical.” Another critical response was declined on the grounds that the critique in question had a “style correspond(ing) to a section on ‘Commentary’ or Debate that [the journal in question] does not have.”In a third instance, the editors of a journal rejected a criticism of an author's case on the grounds that the earlier article had already managed to “accommodate the sort of criticism” being offered, even though the latter was evidentiary rather than methodological. Finally, the editor of yet another journal solicited and received two opinions about a paper submitted to it that disputed the arguments and conclusions of an article that had appeared there a few years earlier. Both referees (I was one of them) recommended publication, and did so with detailed arguments and suggestions for revisions, which the author successfully undertook. Yet the revised paper was rejected on the grounds that it would be “incomprehensible” to most readers—even though it was less technically dense—and better written—than the published paper that it was refuting!

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document