Thanks to Emil for undertaking a replication of my analyses. I have uploaded a new Stata do file to the OSF page for this paper: https://osf.io/5tv3a/

This was indeed a typo.

I had not applied the Fisher transformation to the raw confidence intervals included in the Stata OLS output. Reported confidence intervals have been changed accordingly, and are the same as Emil's. (They were calculated using the cii2 command, as shown in the new Stata do file.)

I calculated d-values by simply taking the regression coefficients from OLS models in which the dependent variable (namely, terrorism threat level) had been standardised. In other words, B1 in the following model was used as an estimate of d:

terrorism_threat_level_z-score = alpha + B1(any_deaths_Iraq_Afghanistan)

When computing Cohen's d directly (using the esize command in Stata), I get the same results as Emil. I presume the discrepancies arise from different methods of calculating the pooled standard deviation. I chose to use the OLS method, rather than calculating Cohen's d directly, because the results are more comparable with the conditional standardised differences obtained from the multivariate models (Tables 1-3). I will report the exact d-values in the paper, if preferred.

I will do this once the discussion regarding d-values has been resolved.

I will include exact p-values for raw estimates in the next version of the paper.

In my experience, logistic and probit regression (binary and ordered) nearly always produce highly similar point estimates (average effects) to OLS, so I prefer to use the latter, given its greater simplicity and ease of interpretation. But I can note in the paper that results were similar when using ordered logistic regression.

I will include an Appendix or file of supplementary analyses with the next version of the paper.

My mistake. Would you suggest that I tried utilising an additional variable, namely number of major military interventions in the Middle East, ranging from 0-4?

Emil Wrote:Replicated, except I get a median of 2.52. Typo perhaps.

This was indeed a typo.

Emil Wrote:Correlation replicated, CI differed... Correlation and lower CI replicated, upper CI did not.

I had not applied the Fisher transformation to the raw confidence intervals included in the Stata OLS output. Reported confidence intervals have been changed accordingly, and are the same as Emil's. (They were calculated using the cii2 command, as shown in the new Stata do file.)

Emil Wrote:I get d = .69... I get 1.63...

I calculated d-values by simply taking the regression coefficients from OLS models in which the dependent variable (namely, terrorism threat level) had been standardised. In other words, B1 in the following model was used as an estimate of d:

terrorism_threat_level_z-score = alpha + B1(any_deaths_Iraq_Afghanistan)

When computing Cohen's d directly (using the esize command in Stata), I get the same results as Emil. I presume the discrepancies arise from different methods of calculating the pooled standard deviation. I chose to use the OLS method, rather than calculating Cohen's d directly, because the results are more comparable with the conditional standardised differences obtained from the multivariate models (Tables 1-3). I will report the exact d-values in the paper, if preferred.

Emil Wrote:I'd like to request that you add the main numerical datapoints of interest to the abstract

I will do this once the discussion regarding d-values has been resolved.

Emil Wrote:I'd like to request that you provide exact p values instead of inequalities.

I will include exact p-values for raw estimates in the next version of the paper.

Emil Wrote:It is better to use a proper method than assuming that a clearly non-normal, non-continuous variable is both.

In my experience, logistic and probit regression (binary and ordered) nearly always produce highly similar point estimates (average effects) to OLS, so I prefer to use the latter, given its greater simplicity and ease of interpretation. But I can note in the paper that results were similar when using ordered logistic regression.

Emil Wrote:I'd like that you add the full results to the supplementary materials

I will include an Appendix or file of supplementary analyses with the next version of the paper.

Emil Wrote:I checked, the correlations are not that strong: r's .33, .50, .69.

My mistake. Would you suggest that I tried utilising an additional variable, namely number of major military interventions in the Middle East, ranging from 0-4?