Karl, how was your pizza?
New article - how did this get published?
-
Uh-oh, you're gonna get the guy (the other one whining about the thread is MH herself) from the thread "Mirya Holman: sheriffs are right-wing extremists" really worked up. They do not like discussions of political science research on PSR. I paraphrase:
"it is cowardly to criticize research on PSR. it is ruining a website that helped me through grad school. if you want to critique research, you should write an article and publish it." -
"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?
"OK, it’s next week. How slow is that flurry?
-
Earlier tweet:
"After 3.5 years, 2 academic conferences, and an R&R, we are very excited that "The Massacre Generation: Young People and Attitudes About Mass Shooting Prevention" has been accepted for publication at SSQ!"
This suggests that many, many eyes have been upon this paper. How did no one ever spot the very glaring problems in the analysis?
-
"After talking to SSQ and the owners of the data, we’ve learned that as long as we only upload the variables we used in our analysis, we are in accordance with SSQ policy and the policy of the proprietors of the data. All eight datasets and our code can be found on Dataverse under Replication Data for: Massacre Generation: Young People and Attitudes About Mass Shooting Prevention.
I would like to reiterate that after running the models once more just be sure, there was no statistical difference between OLS and logistic regression. That being said, we appreciate your desire to check and welcome your replication process. Moreover, we understand why not using the same technique was concerning. As a result, we’ve contacted SSQ and requested that they issue a correction when the article goes to print explaining that we made a mistake in not using the same technique for both set of models. We’ve also requested that they include tables displaying our results using both methods for all eight models in an online appendix in order to alleviate this concern that others may share. We sincerely thank you for bringing this issue to our attention! We welcome any opportunity to clarify our approach and ensure transparency."