Hello There, Guest!  
 Previous 1 4 5 6 7 8 Next   

[ODP] Crime, income and employment among immigrant groups in Norway and Finland

#51
Thanks for the clarification, Emil. In fact, it wasn't just the word "interaction" but also the words "predictor" and "outcome" that had confused me. Generally, people refer to regression when they use these terms. If you had used the word interaction alone, I would not have thought about regressions.

I'm unsure about what terminology would fit best.
 Reply
#52
Dalliard and Meng Hu,

The new version has:
- Some slight language changes
- A paragraph discussing predictor intercorrelations
- A section in the Appendix with the predictor intercorrelations
- Reworded all the instances of "interaction"

PDF is here: https://osf.io/g2fsr/
 Reply
#53
You know I have already approved, but I just wanted to say that I think the description below is clear.

Quote:Are some predictors just generally better at predicting than others, or is there specificity such that while predictor A may be better at predicting outcome X, predictor B is better at predicting outcome Y? An example of this would be that Islam is better than IQ as predicting crime, while IQ is better at predicting educational attainment.
 Reply
#54
MH,

Some of the approvals were given when the paper was much shorter and less comprehensive. Even though there is no policy against this, it seems clearly wrong for authors to first submit a simple paper, then gain reviewers' approval, then drastically change the paper and claim that reviewers have already approved it.

Dalliard is a harsh critic, so I want to get his approval. I tried to get both Wicherts and Flynn to review the paper, but both declined (Wicherts not enough time citing his presence on other editorial boards, Flynn claimed lack of expertise). The journal ought to have at least some reviewers hostile to genetic models of group differences, but who to invite?

---

Approvals:
Piffer, early version
P Frost, early version
Meng Hu, early version
Meng Hu, indirect approval, later version
Chuck, later version

Since 4 approvals are necessary, and 2 two are given for the later version, I will wait.
 Reply
#55
Trust me, if there was really something definitely wrong, I will say it. As you already know, my only problem is with your application of imputation (only three, and no mention of the % of missing cases per variables, and finally, the sentence that seems to suggest that imputation can deal with the problem of "not missing at random", which thing is probably not true in most cases). But since the imputation provides very similar result to the other methods, I don't think I can reject it.

Concerning the last reviewer, maybe try Kevin Beaver. He has published (for instance, see here) on the topic of criminality between racial groups such as blacks and whites.
 Reply
#56
(2014-Sep-27, 06:16:27)Emil Wrote: Dalliard is a harsh critic, so I want to get his approval. I tried to get both Wicherts and Flynn to review the paper, but both declined (Wicherts not enough time citing his presence on other editorial boards, Flynn claimed lack of expertise). The journal ought to have at least some reviewers hostile to genetic models of group differences, but who to invite?


You're not really testing a genetic model here -- so that shouldn't matter in this instance. To begin to test one, this way, you would need to decompose associations by migrant generations.
 Reply
#57
You know as well as I do, that people who are against the genetic model tend to be against.. everything else too.

Most data isn't broken down by generation. 3rd generations are beginning to emerge in DK. The statistics agency follows them closely to see if they perform better than 2nd gen.
 Reply
#58
(2014-Sep-29, 07:39:07)Emil Wrote: You know as well as I do, that people who are against the genetic model tend to be against.. everything else too.

Most data isn't broken down by generation. 3rd generations are beginning to emerge in DK. The statistics agency follows them closely to see if they perform better than 2nd gen.


I'll open a separate thread to discuss the matter; the review section of your paper really isn't the place to do so. Can you try to secure approval for this paper?
 Reply
#59
1) "Islam correlates around weak to moderately with the others (-.14 to -.43, mean -.29)."

--> "correlates weakly to moderately"

2) "that Islam is better than IQ as predicting crime,"

--> "the prevalence of Islam predicts crime better than (national) IQ"

Other than that, the paper is OK and I approve it for publication.
 Reply
#60
Fixed both. New revision: https://osf.io/g2fsr/

This makes for 3 approvals for extended study. So need either Piffer or Peter Frost.
 Reply
 Previous 1 4 5 6 7 8 Next   
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)