Hello There, Guest!  

Paper rejected by Intelligence with comments

#21
(2016-Jan-20, 17:24:49)Duxide Wrote: I am not even sure that publishing my latest paper in Intelligence I achieved a bigger impact. So far I have not received any emails from academics (except those I personally know) as a result of reading my Intelligence paper. The Wikipedia entry about race differences in Intelligence doesn't even cite that paper. All I got was a retarded comment by an American geneticist at a conference. For all these reasons, I decided I will just find some experts as external reviewers and ask them to review this paper for OP. This is a new field of genetics and there aren't many experts. It'll be hard to find people who have the time to review my paper too.


I think you need to wait longer than this before you can tell whether publishing it there made a difference. The journal issue has only been in print for around a month, and not everyone reads the papers when they first appear online.

I think it's possible that your paper will be mentioned by the next major overview of intelligence research, such as Douglas Detterman's upcoming book. As the former editor of that journal, I'm sure Detterman is familiar with research that's published in Intelligence. But if he wants his book to be taken seriously he'll need to avoid citing anything that's published in Mankind Quarterly, since citing papers from that journal was one of the things The Bell Curve was attacked for. (For example, see this article.)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there's an important difference between your 2015 paper and most of your earlier papers on the topic. Mankind Quarterly and ODP generally aren't considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, so as a general rule, Wikipedia can't cite them at all. But it can cite papers published in Intelligence, if the papers are prominent enough. In this case, the reason your paper isn't being cited at Wikipedia is mostly because its finding haven't yet been replicated by anyone else. (At least not in anything that's been published--Christainsens's poster presentation from ISIR doesn't count.) This was discussed on the article's talk page here. It is possible that this situation will eventually change, and that in the future your paper will become prominent enough for Wikipedia to cite it. However, Wikipedia will never be able to cite any of your papers from Mankind Quarterly or ODP.
 Reply
#22
(2016-Jan-23, 01:46:50)Tetrapteryx Wrote: I think you need to wait longer than this before you can tell whether publishing it there made a difference. The journal issue has only been in print for around a month, and not everyone reads the papers when they first appear online.


Really? I guess I had overestimated the internet-friendliness of academics. But given their high average age (not to say their "oldness"), I guess it's possible that what you're saying is true.

Quote:I think it's possible that your paper will be mentioned by the next major overview of intelligence research, such as Douglas Detterman's upcoming book. As the former editor of that journal, I'm sure Detterman is familiar with research that's published in Intelligence. But if he wants his book to be taken seriously he'll need to avoid citing anything that's published in Mankind Quarterly, since citing papers from that journal was one of the things The Bell Curve was attacked for. (For example, see this article.)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there's an important difference between your 2015 paper and most of your earlier papers on the topic. Mankind Quarterly and ODP generally aren't considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, so as a general rule, Wikipedia can't cite them at all. But it can cite papers published in Intelligence, if the papers are prominent enough. In this case, the reason your paper isn't being cited at Wikipedia is mostly because its finding haven't yet been replicated by anyone else. (At least not in anything that's been published--Christainsens's poster presentation from ISIR doesn't count.) This was discussed on the article's talk page here. It is possible that this situation will eventually change, and that in the future your paper will become prominent enough for Wikipedia to cite it. However, Wikipedia will never be able to cite any of your papers from Mankind Quarterly or ODP.

I think f1000Research is prominent enough, isn't it? I published my paper on human stature there, employing the same methods I used for the Intelligence paper: http://f1000research.com/articles/4-15/v2
A new version will be published early next week.
Maybe if someone brings this up on Wikipedia, that'll help. But it's premature because my paper has had only 1 review and I am waiting for more reviews to come. Apart from OP, it's the only serious open peer review journal.The author has to propose potential reviewers but the issue is that most of the reviewers I proposed were rejected by the f1000Research editors because they adopt very strict criteria (most of them were judged not to have enough expertise or too few publications, although of course I disagree otherwise I would have not recommended these reviewers. I did so only after looking at their CVs and home pages).A lot of them also declined to review because they were too busy. It's always a problem, usually the more expert the reviewer, the busier and less likely to review an article they are.
Perhaps I should publish my next intelligence paper there but I don't want to ruin my reputation with f1000Research editors. I am worried they might freak out if they see I mention population IQ.
 Reply
#23
(2016-Jan-23, 01:46:50)Tetrapteryx Wrote: However, Wikipedia will never be able to cite any of your papers from Mankind Quarterly or ODP.


Is there a way to get around this? Emil refuses to publish in "respectable" journals, so we are going to submit 200 pages of analysis to MQ. Were I to publish a followup discussion in e.g., Intelligence and therein summarize some of the MQ results in tables, could that data then be cited?
 Reply
#24
(2016-Jan-23, 10:56:58)Duxide Wrote: I think f1000Research is prominent enough, isn't it? I published my paper on human stature there, employing the same methods I used for the Intelligence paper: http://f1000research.com/articles/4-15/v2
A new version will be published early next week.
Maybe if someone brings this up on Wikipedia, that'll help. But it's premature because my paper has had only 1 review and I am waiting for more reviews to come. Apart from OP, it's the only serious open peer review journal.The author has to propose potential reviewers but the issue is that most of the reviewers I proposed were rejected by the f1000Research editors because they adopt very strict criteria (most of them were judged not to have enough expertise or too few publications, although of course I disagree otherwise I would have not recommended these reviewers. I did so only after looking at their CVs and home pages).A lot of them also declined to review because they were too busy. It's always a problem, usually the more expert the reviewer, the busier and less likely to review an article they are.


I'm not familiar enough with that journal to say either way. If you really want to know, I'd recommend registering a Wikipedia account and asking about it at the Reliable sources noticeboard, which is where people discuss what sources are or aren't reliable enough for Wikipedia to cite.

If you do decide to register a Wikipedia account, I recommend against adding citations to your own papers in any of the articles. Doing that is known as editing with a conflict of interest, and is frowned upon. (However, it's generally okay to suggest them on the talk pages, as long as you disclose that you're the author, and leave it up to others to decide whether to add them.)

(2016-Jan-23, 19:18:27)Chuck Wrote: Is there a way to get around this? Emil refuses to publish in "respectable" journals, so we are going to submit 200 pages of analysis to MQ. Were I to publish a followup discussion in e.g., Intelligence and therein summarize some of the MQ results in tables, could that data then be cited?


Yes, I think that could potentially be cited. However, the citation would have to only be to the data that was published in Intelligence--if there are any additional details that are mentioned in Mankind Quarterly but not in Intelligence, Wikipedia won't be able to include any of those. Also, as I said in my last post, publishing something in Intelligence doesn't guarantee that Wikipedia will cite it. Having the data published in a respectable journal is only one of a few requirements.

Incidentally, I think it's unfortunate that you and Emil would be deciding to publish in Mankind Quarterly this early in your careers. As you're probably aware, having published papers there makes it less likely that other people will cite any of your work, regardless of where it's published. It's not unusual for authors to get attacked because they're citing people who've previously published in that journal (the article I linked to in my last post being one example), and some authors would rather not put themselves at risk for that. People who are already famous, such as Eysenck, have been able to publish in that journal without damaging their careers because by that point other authors could not realistically avoid citing them. But when you aren't famous yet, it seems rash to already be giving other people a reason not to cite you.
 Reply
#25
People may regard Wikipedia as a god for providing knowledge. But it is not. It is written by ordinary internet users, who have their own personal opinion.

They regard sources criticizing MQ racist as reliable sources to discredit this journal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:...t_Zimbabwe

Some editor even tries to discredit intelligence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_...discussion

Human are far from a rational creature based its behaviour on regulation, they bias their interpretation of regulation, and create regulations based on their own values.

I think editing Wikipedia is a kind of male display behaviour. It's not surprising why 90% editors are male. (There are some research in Wikipedia editing motivation, but I haven't found one linked it to showing off. I hope it will be explored.) Hence those who would like to show off are more likely to become Wikipedia editor. Meanwhile, perhaps showing one's compassion to disadvantaged group is also a kind of show off, a trait evolved through sexual selection. Therefore, it's reasonable that Wikipedia editors tend to have a race-denying tendency.
 Reply
#26
You can call it a "a race-denying tendency" if you want, but this is the way most of the world thinks. Have you ever done a search for "Mankind Quarterly" at Google Books? Sources that are attacking it outnumber those that are defending it or citing it by at least two to one.

If you want to argue there are problems with Wikipedia, there are much better examples to use. I addressed this in my post here, in particular the large number of hoaxes on Wikipedia, and how they eventually come to be repeated in professional articles and books.

But at the same time, Wikipedia is pretty definitely the most widely-used source of information in the world. In my comment there, I linked to an article describing how it's used more often than any other single source by doctors prescribing care for their patients. This article describes the trend of articles citing Wikipedia in the peer-reviewed medical literature. It doesn't include data past 2013, but the overall recent trend has been an increase (apart from a brief dip in 2010).

[Image: F1.medium.gif]

Therefore, I think how a topic is presented at Wikipedia is a useful proxy for how it's understood by society at large.
 Reply
#27
(2016-Jan-24, 14:51:35)mwang Wrote: People may regard Wikipedia as a god for providing knowledge. But it is not. It is written by ordinary internet users, who have their own personal opinion.

They regard sources criticizing MQ racist as reliable sources to discredit this journal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:...t_Zimbabwe

Some editor even tries to discredit intelligence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_...discussion

Human are far from a rational creature based its behaviour on regulation, they bias their interpretation of regulation, and create regulations based on their own values.

I think editing Wikipedia is a kind of male display behaviour. It's not surprising why 90% editors are male. (There are some research in Wikipedia editing motivation, but I haven't found one linked it to showing off. I hope it will be explored.) Hence those who would like to show off are more likely to become Wikipedia editor. Meanwhile, perhaps showing one's compassion to disadvantaged group is also a kind of show off, a trait evolved through sexual selection. Therefore, it's reasonable that Wikipedia editors tend to have a race-denying tendency.


These kinds of arguments have been advanced before. However, I think Wikipedia is generally a great resource. This is especially because it is very transparent (sources are clearly visible) and available (to anyone with an internet connection). As it so happens, smarter and more knowledgeable persons tend to be more interested in editing Wikipedia, so the content is not generally written by normal people, but by persons with some level of expertise in the area. It's a kind of emergent meritocracy.

Most topics do not involve something relevant to political ideology or topics otherwise emotionally charged, so they do not get biased much (aside from the 'sampling error' of Wikipedians).

With regards to race, it is but one of many areas of science that tends to provide findings that are inconsistent with blank slateism/egalitarianism or equality-based political ideologies. The largest disservice has been done, as far as I know, by WeijiBaikeBianji and to a smaller degree maunus. The Race and Intellilgence article, for instance, is very biased due to their extreme reliance on citing everything Nisbett wrote in his case for zero between group heritability.

John Fuerst and I did a series of meta-analyses of the admixture studies recently and found results pretty much, but not exactly, as the genetic model would predict. This is true both for countries, within country political divisions (e.g. states), between individuals within SIRE groups and using various groups with known racial admixture rates (the usual method of the old studies, e.g. using persons with 1/2/3/4 'Negro' (the usual term back then) parent(s) and looking at their IQ scores or GPA). They are not formally published yet and are not going to appear in Intelligence since I don't want to work for free for Elsevier.

Due to Wikipedia's policy of using papers from mainstream journals (i.e. generally high impact factor, closed access ones), this means that this evidence will not be integrated into Wikipedia anytime soon. Note that I generally think this policy is reasonable because if it was not there, anyone could try to add wacky or nonsensical studies published in fake, pay to publish journals.

By the way, there is already a thread on the forum for discussing Wikipedia. If this discussion continues here, I will move the posts over to the other thread.
 Reply
#28
Duxide why are even pushing such study to be published in Intelligence? It sounds like something that should be published in a journal on genetics instead. Intelligence is more focused around psychometrics.
 Reply
#29
(2016-Feb-11, 02:08:31)General-Factor analyst Wrote: Duxide why are even pushing such study to be published in Intelligence? It sounds like something that should be published in a journal on genetics instead. Intelligence is more focused around psychometrics.


I would but I am afraid that any mention of IQ results in your paper being automatically flagged by genetics journals (with the exception of Behavior Genetics, but that deals more with within population stuff).
 Reply
#30
I'm sure the rejection of your paper had more to do with the objectivity in question. Many of those that pursue such topics research through a confirmation bias which skews interpretation and methodologies used in the study. (Lynn)
 Reply
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)