Hello There, Guest!  

[OBG] Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing

#11
(2014-Aug-14, 18:13:56)Peter Frost Wrote: Duxide,

"by your suggestion I should publish in a top-tier journal with corrupt and evil review system"

That is exactly my suggestion. Yes, life is unfair, but we only have one life to live, and the most sensible solution is to negotiate with life as best we can.

I believe that your findings deserve much more exposure than they are currently getting. Unfortunately, more exposure will be possible only through publication in a top-tier journal. I believe in OBG, but it will be many years before it gains the status of Nature Genetics or even Evolution and Human Behavior. This is how academia works. If you publish in obscure journals, people will assume your findings are obscure. Again, life is unfair, but one cannot take one's life back to a dealer and ask for a refund. We have to play the cards we're dealt.

You can increase your chances of publication by following a few basic rules:

- Don't wander off topic. The more you wander off topic, the greater the chances of writing something that will piss off one of the reviewers (or the editor). Sexual selection is one such topic. Many reviewers will dismiss any talk of sexual selection as total nonsense -- "Just-so stories." This kind of situation is unavoidable if sexual selection is the main topic of your paper. In your case, it isn't. You're creating needless problems for yourself.

- Don't cite non-experts. Richard Lynn is a fine man, but he is not an expert on technological complexity in hunter-gatherers.

- Anticipate criticisms. You've done this admirably.

Even if you do everything right, your chances of acceptance will never be greater than 50%. This is a difficult topic to write about, and many people will react angrily. But there is no fool-proof way of screening out angry reviewers. You're facing a deep-seated ideological prejudice that cannot be resolved through a different form of peer review.


"You also say "the list of IQ-enhancing alleles should be drawn up by someone else". I already said that there are only 4 IQ enhancing alleles whose effect has been replicated. If someone else drew them up, he'd get the same four."

Fine. I may be worried for no reason. I was just trying to anticipate a possible criticism.


"I never heard of a reviewer that expresses his opinion on a paper submitted to a journal recommending publication on a different journal!!"

I have. As a reviewer, I've often made that kind of comment. Please keep in mind that I'm not talking about the present paper under review. I'm saying that if you can increase the size of your dataset, you should consider publishing a subsequent paper in a top-tier journal. That's not an insult. That's a compliment.


Your suggestions are certainly sensible and I agree that publishing in an obscure journal will make my ideas obscure as well. However as you rightly point out my results are considered "blasfemous" and totally unacceptable to the editors of "respectable" journals. What's the chance they'll ever make it into a top-tier publication? Very low...since these journals do not accept multiple submission and as we all know their review process is slow, it could be years before I see my paper published, since I'd have to submit to many journals before seeing it eventually accepted. Unless I cheated the system (which is something I am not entirely opposed to) by carrying out multiple submission. This would certainly speed up the process with obvious risks in case my efforts were detected (but as you say, we live only once so we may want to take risks).
 Reply
#12
With respect, Duxide, I think Frost is right.
 Reply
#13
(2014-Aug-14, 22:26:22)Philbrick Bastinado Wrote: With respect, Duxide, I think Frost is right.


Thanks.In this case, I will withdraw it.
 Reply
#14
BTW, before you withdraw this paper, can the African genotypic IQ really be 73??? That implies that African environmental conditions knock 3 points off the African IQ (if Lynn's IQ estimates are right), or ADD seven points to the African IQ (if Wicherts's estimates are right). I'd expect the African environment to be worth minus 15 IQ points at least.
 Reply
#15
An alternative way of estimating an African IQ (which I provided in the discussion) is this: the African American (ASW) and native African (YRI, LWK) estimated genotypic IQ differ by 4 points. Since we have better data for the US Black IQ, which is around 85, the native African IQ would be 85-4= 81, in line with Wicherts' estimates.
 Reply
#16
You seem to be sure about your decision. Otherwise, I could have given you my approval. My only question was about the pygmies, but after reading this article (look pages 312 and 335) (and this other one as well) I don't have any particular point to make, as I agree with these authors.

Anyway I attach a corrected version of your document. I have only modified the list of references. It contained some spacing problems, a missing letter "o" in "develpment". The font style was not the same for all lines, so I used Arial (size=11) like the rest of the text.


Attached Files
.   Estimating the genotypic IQ of populations and assessing the impact of socioeconomic factors and migrations (Piffer 2014 (Size: 47.65 KB / Downloads: 652)
 Reply
#17
(2014-Aug-18, 04:24:45)menghu1001 Wrote: You seem to be sure about your decision. Otherwise, I could have given you my approval. My only question was about the pygmies, but after reading this article (look pages 312 and 335) (and this other one as well) I don't have any particular point to make, as I agree with these authors.

Anyway I attach a corrected version of your document. I have only modified the list of references. It contained some spacing problems, a missing letter "o" in "develpment". The font style was not the same for all lines, so I used Arial (size=11) like the rest of the text.


Unfortunately I've withdrawn this, at least for the moment. Other reviewers and colleagues in general suggested me that this paper should be published on a high impact journal. Since these journals do not allow multiple submission, I had to withdraw it. However, depending on the outcome, I may decide to resubmit this paper to OBG. Nonetheless, thanks for your review.
 Reply
#18
I, too, would have given my approval. But this paper really deserves to be in a journal with a higher impact factor, perhaps Evolution and Human Behavior. It would be difficult to aim higher because the dataset is still small.

I will gladly revise and proofread the final manuscript.
 Reply
#19
(2014-Aug-18, 19:38:17)Peter Frost Wrote: I, too, would have given my approval. But this paper really deserves to be in a journal with a higher impact factor, perhaps Evolution and Human Behavior. It would be difficult to aim higher because the dataset is still small.

I will gladly revise and proofread the final manuscript.


Thanks. I'll keep you updated. In the meantime, I've published a pre-print here: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/08/14/008011
If you need to cite it before the final version is published it can be done thus:

Piffer, D. (2014).Estimating strength of polygenic selection with principal components analysis of spatial genetic variation. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/008011
 Reply
#20
Duxide,

Could you provide a link to a Word file? I could then indicate any suggested corrections directly in the file.
 Reply
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)