tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376043368830552704.post6717748734933642753..comments2016-06-13T05:58:46.119+03:00Comments on Deep Thoughts and Silliness: Gender Differences: Need More Data!Bob O'Harahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09924796617668384141noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376043368830552704.post-62560161442058305842011-08-02T08:44:26.035+03:002011-08-02T08:44:26.035+03:00I agree, " Logistic regression almost works&#...I agree, " Logistic regression almost works'. It does require more data, but it can be concluded from most cultures in the world that it is a 'general rule'. One distinct culture is that of a tribe in Indonesia where they have 5 genders, which the Bissu are the meta-gender.Panic Attackshttp://www.panicaway.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376043368830552704.post-12590923168697573812008-01-26T21:11:00.000+02:002008-01-26T21:11:00.000+02:00Oh, good. So if the proportion started were 25%, ...Oh, good. So if the proportion started were 25%, the effect of double-blinding would be to shift the proportion to 28% (CI: 24%-33%). So the difference isn't huge, and the uncertainty is comparatively large.<BR/><BR/>I think TREE might be interested. Hang on *rummage rummage*<BR/><BR/>OK, that's your email address...Bob O'Harahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09924796617668384141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376043368830552704.post-53409044501191110172008-01-26T05:15:00.000+02:002008-01-26T05:15:00.000+02:00I'm reposting this comment here so that you can se...I'm reposting this comment here so that you can see it. <BR/><BR/>Here's the estimates from my model. <BR/><BR/>The BE-BES comparison has a parameter estimate of -0.15 (SE=0.11, 95% CI -0.3696-0.0627). This is only looking at the log odds of female to male. Interesting, this is very close to the estimate you obtained. <BR/><BR/>In contrast comparing BE to JB (JB shifted to an increase in male authored papers) the estimate is: <BR/>-0.2372 (95% C.I. -0.4819-0.00755) only looking log odds of female to male. <BR/><BR/>I agree about the random effects model but I thought it would be interesting to see if there were any significant differences across any of the journals. <BR/><BR/>I wonder if a short note to TREE is in order?S. Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08298654448005532381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376043368830552704.post-30241154528644065392008-01-25T02:41:00.000+02:002008-01-25T02:41:00.000+02:00I've reanalyzed the data using a generalized logit...I've reanalyzed the data using a generalized logit model and the results don't support the hypothesis that BES and BE are different. <BR/><BR/>I posted it on my blog and I'd be happy to send the analysis to you if you want. It does not account for the random nature of the sample, but it is in the same spirit as the original analysis in the paper.S. Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08298654448005532381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376043368830552704.post-8227959509995640972008-01-24T14:31:00.000+02:002008-01-24T14:31:00.000+02:00ae budden - thanks for your comments. Given the v...ae budden - thanks for your comments. Given the variation between journals, my feeling is that matching to just a single journal is difficult, because you have to be sure that you're matching using the right properties. Journals have to be different (competitive exclusion!), and the more similar they are with regards to obvious properties, the more subtle I suspect are the differences.<BR/><BR/>It's good to hear you're looking at acceptance rates. If you need any help with the data analysis, just ask (Roosa has my email address).<BR/><BR/>s. walker - Logistic regression almost works. The problems is that the main source of variation is between journals. So, you would need to fix the time*journal effect as random. I did this using a GLMM, and got an estimate of -0.15 with a standard error of 0.10. You get slightly different results depending on what precise model you use, but the conclusions are always the same.Bob O'Harahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09924796617668384141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376043368830552704.post-7848341726291204982008-01-24T01:32:00.000+02:002008-01-24T01:32:00.000+02:00I thought the same thing as I read the manuscript ...I thought the same thing as I read the manuscript this morning, Given that the data is available from the MS, it would be possible to reanalyze it using a log-linear model and determine the effect size/significance of the change. <BR/><BR/>If you haven't already done so, I'll post those results up on my blog later today or tomorrow. <BR/><BR/>SeanS. Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08298654448005532381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376043368830552704.post-57752336431843118642008-01-23T20:32:00.000+02:002008-01-23T20:32:00.000+02:00Dear BobThanks for your in-depth consideration of ...Dear Bob<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your in-depth consideration of the paper - it made for interesting reading.<BR/><BR/>To add a couple of clarifications regarding the rationale behind the study, we are an NCEAS working group interested in exploring many aspects of bias in the ecological publishing community. As ecologists and evolutionary ecologists we were aware at the outset of the review policy change in BE (a number of us had submitted to that journal) and were also aware that this was an exception in our field. Hence we decided to investigate the effect that this change had on author demographics without knowledge of the result. Furthermore, a priori we chose BES as the comparison journal given the very similar IF and nature of the two journals. Investigation of the trends in these two journals gave us some very compelling results (as shown by your figure). However, a comparison of one on one did not lead for large sample sizes and so again, a priori, we developed criteria for a larger sample of single blind journals. These journals show differing trends in the proportion of female first authors, however they also reflect different fields within ecology which may be growing at different rates. Perhaps BES is still the best comparison for this reason? <BR/><BR/>I completely agree that more data are needed and factors beyond gender need to be explored. Our group is now working on submission data provided by a set of journals (albeit single-blind) to more thoroughly explore demographic effects on the likelihood of acceptance. We hope that these data will provide more insight into the reviewing process.AE Buddennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376043368830552704.post-24732223304606353632008-01-22T22:53:00.000+02:002008-01-22T22:53:00.000+02:00Nope, I don't know why Blogger wants a huge space ...Nope, I don't know why Blogger wants a huge space before the table either.Bob O'Harahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09924796617668384141noreply@blogger.com