JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Archives


CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Archives

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Archives


CRIT-GEOG-FORUM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Home

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Home

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM  October 2018

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM October 2018

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Areo #2 Statistics and methodology

From:

Edward H Sebesta <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Edward H Sebesta <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 4 Oct 2018 20:01:10 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (57 lines)

In reading this paper there are certain obvious flaws (in my opinion) looking at it in terms of methodology and statistics. 


1. There is no summary table of results of their twenty papers with additional pertinent factors.

In doing a study of any type the question comes up if the study's results are not due to other factors. The persons doing this study may have done nothing more than identify a subset of journals which have poor standards or there might be some systematic weakness in academic publishing by a sub-class of publications. 

I would think that in this study the following factors in a table: How long has the journal been published?; How many subscribers does the journal have?; How long have the editors been editors?; How many reviewers did each paper get?; How many journals did they submit the paper to?; Did the journal ask for a fee?; Who were the publishers?; What journals turned down the paper?; What is the geographic location of publishers?. 

Also, factors of methods of review. What was the turn around time for the journal in response to submission, turn around time for a response to reviewers, time to review final edited paper? There might be some factor in the process of accepting papers for publication by a journal, not an inherent flaw in these fields of critical studies. 

2. How many journals did each paper get submitted to? 

For example they states, "As for our performance, 80% of our paper overall went to full peer review at major journals across the field."

It would be useful to see a table of the journals each paper was submitted to. It might be that they are just identified some bad journals out of a larger set of journals.

Also, if you keep resubmitting papers over and over it might be that eventually you will find a weak point.

Also it is not clear if the papers were revised between submissions. There in a listing in the paper an item, "6 retired as fatally flawed or beyond repair." We "repair" being done with each rejection? Is there one paper being resubmitted or a paper that is evolving to get past editors. 

Sooner or later the participant in this study found an overworked staff and reviewers and got past them. 

The methodology of the study in my opinion is missing critical information. 

3. Sample size 

How many journals did these papers get submitted to? If the twenty papers that got accepted were submitted to a total of 200 journals it merely means that out of 200 journals 7 of them accepted the paper giving a rate of 3.5% for editorial failure. 

Also, seven is a small number. What would the error bars be for this? There is no replication in this study. If run a few times, would most of the results be one through three? We don't know. We don't know because we are missing data on the submission rate. 

We could estimate based on some table of papers, submissions, and timelines and get some rough, very rough idea. 

One paper getting special recognition is possibly, what is called in statistics, a fluke, outlier, etc. 

4. The authors are claiming that certain fields of study are flawed. 

They don't have any comparison data. Did they pick other fields of study to do a similar publishing effort? 

It might be that they have discovered that academic publishing is very dependent on assuming that the paper is submitted in good faith. 

Also, how would they do such a comparison study being that they obviously have an agenda? 

5. There is an estimate that they think they could have published 10 to 12 papers out of the 20. However, I don't see how they come with this estimate. Given that this is a key element in their assertion I would think that a calculation would be supplied. 

6. Closure of the study and bias of result.

As the paper states, "... thus stop the study, before it could be properly concluded." I agree that it wasn't properly concluded. 

The authors of this study however rushed to publish so they could discredit fields of study. There is the claim that seven papers are still in play. Were they really in play or were they really papers that were "fatally flawed?"

This paper has in my opinion fatal flaws. 

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the CRIT-GEOG-FORUM list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CRIT-GEOG-FORUM&A=1

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager