December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Authors' Committee


Matt Blackwell (Gov)


Martin Andersen (HealthPol)
Kevin Bartz (Stats)
Deirdre Bloome (Social Policy)
John Graves (HealthPol)
Rich Nielsen (Gov)
Maya Sen (Gov)
Gary King (Gov)

Weekly Research Workshop Sponsors

Alberto Abadie, Lee Fleming, Adam Glynn, Guido Imbens, Gary King, Arthur Spirling, Jamie Robins, Don Rubin, Chris Winship

Weekly Workshop Schedule

Recent Comments

Recent Entries



SMR Blog
Brad DeLong
Cognitive Daily
Complexity & Social Networks
Developing Intelligence
The Education Wonks
Empirical Legal Studies
Free Exchange
Health Care Economist
Junk Charts
Language Log
Law & Econ Prof Blog
Machine Learning (Theory)
Marginal Revolution
Mixing Memory
Mystery Pollster
New Economist
Political Arithmetik
Political Science Methods
Pure Pedantry
Science & Law Blog
Simon Jackman
Social Science++
Statistical modeling, causal inference, and social science



Powered by
Movable Type 4.24-en

« December 1, 2006 | Main | December 5, 2006 »

4 December 2006

NYT on Improving the Peer Review Process

Wednesday's New York Times reports on recommendations by an independent panel on how the journal Science could improve its review process (see here). The panel was instituted after Science had to rectract papers by Dr. Hwang Woo-suk that were based on fabricated results. The panel recommended four changes:

(1) Flag high visibility paper for extra scrutiny in the review process
(2) Require authors to specify their individual contributions to a paper
(3) Make more raw data available online for replication
(4) Work with other journals to establish a common standard for the review process.

Recommendations 3 and 4 has previously featured on this blog here and here. (2) should produce interesting results in joint publications. Maybe a logical extension would be to asses academic output by using the contributions as weights?

Posted by Sebastian Bauhoff at 4:57 PM