those ajps page-turners on the other hand...
LOL, but no. I don't think anything that's ever been published in SSQ could be described as provocative. The median SSQ article puts you to sleep faster than a sleeping pill.
New article - how did this get published?
-
My hope is that Karl gets it and posts it for public access.
I got no dog in the fight, but I do think it reflects poorly that people who doubt the findings will wait for some rt-wing shill to spill the data instead of asking for it themselves. SSQ has a reasonable data access policy, and replication is part of how science works, not necessarily a personal attack.
-
Did they give you the data, Karl?
Journal policy says they have to give it to you if you ask, Karl. Don't let them give you any grief."Some of the data do not belong to us alone and are still being used by other academics that we work with, so let me reach out to them and see what the policy (and SSQ’s) should be in this scenario. The other data are publicly available, so should pose no problem. Can I get back to you next week when the end of semester flurry has slowed down?
" -
^that is potentially slippery language. Did they both produce stars where they needed them? Or did one produce stars and the other not, even if they're not "statistically" different from one another (whatever that means in the context of comparing OLS and logit coefficients).
IMO, Karl, you should not focus only on this paper since it is just one publication and in a minor journal. Instead, look at the fact that there are also other papers on gun control in better outlets that have received positive press coverage that reach woke-friendly conclusions by manipulating the data in ways that border on or cross over into fraud
-
^that is potentially slippery language. Did they both produce stars where they needed them? Or did one produce stars and the other not, even if they're not "statistically" different from one another (whatever that means in the context of comparing OLS and logit coefficients).
IMO, Karl, you should not focus only on this paper since it is just one publication and in a minor journal. Instead, look at the fact that there are also other papers on gun control in better outlets that have received positive press coverage that reach woke-friendly conclusions by manipulating the data in ways that border on or cross over into fraudResearching all " other papers on gun control in better outlets" is a good idea but not sure it is feasible... it sounds more like a lifelong research agenda, rather than something I can just do on a whim...
-
When asked about the earliest four polls (1999, 2000, 2001, 2011)using OLS, while the latest four polls (2012, 2015, 2017, 2018) use logistic regression:
"Note that we ran the models both ways and there was no statistical difference between the approaches."This is not noted in the paper. And if it is true, then it is absolutely insane that they would choose to report different models for the two different time periods. There is no reasonable justification for it.
-
Someone posted the SSQ data availability policy earlier in the thread. It seems pretty cut-and-dried: they don't publish unless replication data will be made available.
Looks to me like there may be an age effect (older folks are different from younger folks overall) but that they don't show a cohort effect (one group of people is different is all other groups) or define who's in that cohort. Hard to say, but I'm sure they'll provide the replication data since that's the journal's policy.
-
Karl, with respect, you inserted the word "all" before "other research papers. You left it out of the quotes but it changes my suggestion from something quite feasible into something infeasible. There is a reference earlier in this thread to a takedown of a British Journal of Political Science article on the effects of gun violence that received favorable press coverage. Why don't you start there. Then you would at least have two examples to discuss of how woke ideology makes the discipline receptive to flimsy or fake results on this topic.
^that is potentially slippery language. Did they both produce stars where they needed them? Or did one produce stars and the other not, even if they're not "statistically" different from one another (whatever that means in the context of comparing OLS and logit coefficients).
IMO, Karl, you should not focus only on this paper since it is just one publication and in a minor journal. Instead, look at the fact that there are also other papers on gun control in better outlets that have received positive press coverage that reach woke-friendly conclusions by manipulating the data in ways that border on or cross over into fraudResearching all " other papers on gun control in better outlets" is a good idea but not sure it is feasible... it sounds more like a lifelong research agenda, rather than something I can just do on a whim...
-
I didn't mean to be manipulative by adding "all," didn't even really notice i did it
Anyways I emailed Schaffner for the pdf of his paper because i didnt want to pay for institutional access. He just sent it to me, haven't had a chance to read it yet
Karl, with respect, you inserted the word "all" before "other research papers. You left it out of the quotes but it changes my suggestion from something quite feasible into something infeasible. There is a reference earlier in this thread to a takedown of a British Journal of Political Science article on the effects of gun violence that received favorable press coverage. Why don't you start there. Then you would at least have two examples to discuss of how woke ideology makes the discipline receptive to flimsy or fake results on this topic.
^that is potentially slippery language. Did they both produce stars where they needed them? Or did one produce stars and the other not, even if they're not "statistically" different from one another (whatever that means in the context of comparing OLS and logit coefficients).
IMO, Karl, you should not focus only on this paper since it is just one publication and in a minor journal. Instead, look at the fact that there are also other papers on gun control in better outlets that have received positive press coverage that reach woke-friendly conclusions by manipulating the data in ways that border on or cross over into fraud
Researching all " other papers on gun control in better outlets" is a good idea but not sure it is feasible... it sounds more like a lifelong research agenda, rather than something I can just do on a whim... -
Did they give you the data, Karl?
Journal policy says they have to give it to you if you ask, Karl. Don't let them give you any grief."Some of the data do not belong to us alone and are still being used by other academics that we work with, so let me reach out to them and see what the policy (and SSQ’s) should be in this scenario. The other data are publicly available, so should pose no problem. Can I get back to you next week when the end of semester flurry has slowed down?
"For the corresponding author, commencement was May 6 (the other author's commencement was May 14). Their semester is over lol.