The rate of production of scholarship has never been higher. Our ability to discover relevant scholarship, courtesy Google scholar, has also never been greater. But our ability to discover scholarship per unit of time has plateaued, partly because input to Google is still grossly limited, and partly because structured databases of academic information aren’t always public. For instance, think of a system that takes your .bib file, trawls a large database of citation lists, and produces recommendations for scholarship you may have missed. The logic is that of a `recommender system’: people who have cited X, Y and Z also cite A, B and C. The tool can be built off JSTOR and other large academic databases.
Many companies offer employees ‘benefits.’ These include paying for healthcare, investment plans, company gym, luncheons etc. (Just ask a Silicon Valley tech. employee for the full list.)
But why ‘benefits’? And why not cash?
A company offering a young man zero down healthcare plan seems a bit like within-company insurance. Post Obamacare — it also seems a bit unnecessary. (My reading of Obamacare is that it just mandates companies pay for the healthcare but doesn’t mandate that how they pay for it. So cash payments ought to be ok?)
For investment, the reasoning strikes me as thinner still. Let people decide what they want to do with their money.
In many ways, benefits look a bit as ‘gifts’ — welfare reducing but widespread.
My recommendation: just give people cash. Or give them an option to have cash.
Riker and Ordershook formalized the voting calculus as:
pb + d > c
p = probability of vote ‘mattering’
b = size of the benefit
d = sense of duty
c = cost of voting
They argued that if pb + d exceeds c, people will vote. Otherwise not.
One can generalize this simple formalization for all political action.
A fair bit of technology has been invented to reduce c — it is easier than ever to follow the news, to contact your representative, etc. However, for a particular set of issues, if you reduce c for everyone, you are also reducing p. For as more people get involved, less does the voice of any single person matter. (There are still some conditionalities that I am eliding over — for instance, reduction in c may matter more for people who are poorer etc. and may have an asymmetric impact.)
Technologies invented to exploit synergy, however, do not suffer the same issues. Think Wikipedia, etc.
Lack of reproducibility is a symptom of science in crisis. An eye-catching symptom to be sure, but hardly the only one vying for attention. Recent analyses suggest that nearly two-thirds of the (relevant set of) articles published in prominent political science journals condition on post-treatment variables (see here.) Another set of analysis suggests that half of the relevant set of articles published in prominent neuroscience journals treat difference in significant and non-significant result as the basis for the claim that difference between the two is significant (see here). What is behind this? My guess: poor understanding of statistics, poor editorial processes, and poor strategic incentives.
Poor understanding of statistics: It is likely the primary reason. For it would be good harsh to impute bad faith on part of those who use post-treatment variables as control or treating difference between significant and non-significant result as significant. There is likely a fair bit of ignorance — be it on the part of authors or reviewers. If it is ignorance, then the challenge doesn’t seem as daunting. Let us devise good course materials, online lectures, and teach. And for more advanced scholars, some outreach. (And it may involve teaching scientists how to write-up their results.)
Poor editorial processes: Whatever the failings of authors, they aren’t being caught during the review process. (It would be good to know how often reviewers are actually the source of bad recommendations.) More helpfully, it may be a good idea to create small questionnaires before submission that alert authors about common statistical issues.
Poor strategic incentives: If authors think that journals are implicitly biased towards significant findings, we need to communicate effectively that it isn’t so.
Trevor Hastie is a superb teacher. He excels at making complex things simple. Till recently, his lectures were only available to those fortunate enough to be at Stanford. But now he teaches a free introductory course on statistical learning via the Stanford online learning platform. (I browsed through the online lectures — they are superb, the quality of his teaching, undiminished.)
Online learning, pregnant with rich possibilities, however, has met its cynics and its first failures. The proportion of students who drop-off after signing up for these courses is astonishing (but then so are the sign-up rates). And some very preliminary data suggests that compared to some face-to-face teaching, students enrolled in online learning don’t perform as well. But these are early days and much can be done to refine the systems and to also promote the interests of thousands upon thousands of teachers who have much to contribute to the world. In that spirit, some suggestions:
Currently, Coursera, edX and similar such ventures mostly attempt to replicate an off-line course online. The model is reasonable but doesn’t do justice to the unique opportunities of teaching online:
The Online Learning Platform: For Coursera etc. to be true learning platforms, they need to provide rich APIs for allowing development of both learning and teaching tools (and easy ways for developers to monetize these applications). For instance, professors could access to visualization applications and students access to applications that puts them in touch with peers interested in peer-to-peer teaching. The possibilities are endless. Integration with other social networks and other communication tools at the discretion of students are obvious future steps.
Learning from Peers: The single teacher model is quaint. It locks out contributions from other teachers. And it locks out teachers from potential revenues. We could turn it into a win-win. Scout ideas and materials from teachers and pay them for their contributions, ideally as a share of the revenue — so that they have steady income.
The Online Experimentation Platform: So many researchers in education and psychology are curious and willing to contribute to this broad agenda of online learning. But no protocols and platforms have been established to exploit this willingness. The online learning platforms could release more data at one end. And at the other end, they could create a platform for researchers to option ideas that the community and company can vet. Winning ideas can form basis of research that is implemented on the platform.
Beyond these ideas, there are ideas to do with courses that enhance student’s ability to succeed in these courses. Providing students ‘life skills’ either face-to-face or online, teaching them ways to become more independent students, can allow them to better adapt to the opportunities and challenges of learning online.
When I first came across the paper, I thought that the number was much too high for it to have any reasonable chance of being right. My suspicions were roused further by the fact that the paper provided no bounds on the number — no note about measurement error in matching people across imperfect lists. A galling omission when the finding hinges on the name matching procedure, details of which are left to another paper. What makes it to the paper is this incredibly vague line: “ANES collects …. bolstering our confidence in the matches of respondents to the lists.” I take that to mean that the matching procedure was done with the idea of reducing false positives. If so, the estimate is merely an upper bound on the percentage of Americans who could be unlisted. That isn’t a very useful number.
But reality is a bit worse. To my questions about false positive and negative rates, Bradley Spahn responded on Twitter, “I think all of the contentious cases were decided by me. What are my decision-theoretic properties? Hard to say.” That line covers one of the most essential details of the matching procedure, a detail they say the readers can find “in a companion paper.” The primary issue is subjectivity. But not taking adequate account of the relevance of ‘decision theoretic’ properties to the results in the paper grates.
Intelligence is largely misunderstood. It is generally taken to mean processing capacity. However, it is much better understood as a combination of processing power, knowledge of rules of reasoning, and knowledge of facts.
Talking about processing capacity is largely moot because there is little we can do to change it, except perhaps for nutrition, for e.g. presence of iodine in diet can have a measurable impact on IQ. It can also dangerous to talk about it as people generally talk about incorrectly. When people talk about processing capacity, they make the mistake of thinking that there is a lot of variance in processing capacity. My sense is that variance in the processing capacity is low and the skew high. And people mistake skew for high variance. (This isn’t to say that small variance is not consequential.) In more lay man’s terms, most people are as smart as the other with very few very bright people.
Moving to the second point, knowledge of some rules of reasoning can make a profound difference in how smart a person is. Management consultants have their MECE. Scientists, the mantra that ‘correlation is not causation.’ Add to these ‘frameworks’ and rules, some general principles like: replace categorical thinking with continuous where possible, and be precise. For e.g., rather than claim that ‘there is a risk’, quantify the risk. Teach these rules to people, and they will be ‘smarter’ as a result. Lastly, ignorance of relevant facts limits how well one can reason. Thus, increasing the repository of relevant facts at hand can make the person smarter.
Ideally we would like to be able to place ideology of each bit of information consumed in relation to the ideological location of the person. And we would like a time stamped distribution of the bits consumed. We can then summarize various moments of that distribution (or the distribution of ideological distances). And that would be that. (If we were worried about dimensionality, we would do it by topic.)
But lack of data mean we must change the estimand. We must code each bit of information as merely uncongenial or uncongenial. This means taking directionality out of the equation. For a Republican at a 6 on a 1 to 7 liberal to conservative scale, consuming a bit of information at 5 is the same as consuming a bit at 7.
The conventional estimand then is a set of two ratios: (Bits of politically congenial information consumed)/(All political information) and (Bits of uncongenial information)/(All political information consumed). Other reasonable formalizations exist, including difference between congenial and uncongenial. (Note that the denominator is absent, and reasonably so.)
To estimate these quantities, we must often make further assumptions. First, we must decide on the domain of political information. That domain is likely vast, and increasing by the minute. We are all producers of political information now. (We always were but today we can easily access political opinions of thousands of lay people.) But see here for some thoughts on how to come up with the relevant domain of political information from passive browsing data.
Next, generally, people code ideology at the level of ‘source.’ New York Times is ‘independent’ or ‘liberal’ and ‘Fox’ simply ‘conservative’ or perhaps more accurately ‘Republican leaning.’ (Continuous measures of ideology – as estimated by Groseclose and Milyo or Gentzkow and Shapiro – are also assigned at the source level.) This is fine except that it means coding all bits of information consumed from a source as the same. This is called ecological inference. And there are some attendant risks. We know that not all NYT articles are ‘liberal.’ In fact, we know much of it is not even political news. A toy example of how such measures can mislead:
Page Views: 10 Fox, 10 CNN. Est: 10/20
But say Fox Pages 7R, 3D and CNN 5R, 5D
Est: 7/10 + 5/10 = 12/20
If the measure of ideology is continuous, there are still some risks. If we code all page views as mean ideology of the source, we assume that the person views a random sample of pages on the source. (Or some version of that.) But that is too implausible an assumption. It is much more likely that a liberal reading the NYT likely stays away from the David Brooks’ columns. If you account for such within source self-selection, selective exposure measures based on source level coding are going to be downwardly biased — that is find people as less selective than they are.
Discussion until now has focused on passive browsing data, eliding over survey measures. There are two additional problems with survey measures. One is about the denominator. Measures based on limited choice experiments like ones used by Iyengar and Hahn 2009 are bad measures of real life behavior. In real life we just have far more choices. And inferences from such experiments can at best recover ordinal rankings. The second big problem with survey measures is ‘expressive responding.’ Republicans indicating they watch Fox News not because they do but because they want to convey they do.
Update: Current version is posted here.
Science is a process. And for a good deal of time, peer review has been an essential part of the process. Looked independently by people with no experience with it, it makes a fair bit of sense. For there is only one well-known way of increasing the quality of an academic paper — additional independent thinking. And who better than engaged, trained colleagues.
But this seemingly sound part of the process is creaking. Today, you can’t bring two academics together without them venting their frustration about the broken review system. The plaint is that the current system is a lose-lose-lose. All the parties — the authors, the editors, and the reviewers — lose lots and lots of time. And the change in quality as a result of suggested changes is variable, generally small, and sometimes negative. Given how critical the peer review is in the scientific production, it deserves closer attention, preferably with good data.
But data on peer review aren’t available to be analyzed. Thus, some anecdotal data. Of the 80 or so reviews that I have filed and for which editors have been kind enough to share comments by other reviewers, two things have jumped at me: a) hefty variation in quality of reviews, b) and equally hefty variation in recommendations for the final disposition. It would be good to quantify the two. The latter is easy enough to quantify.
Reliability of the review process has implications for how many recommenders we need to reliably accept or reject the same article. Counter-intuitively, increasing the number of reviewers per manuscript may not increase the overall burden of reviewing. Partly because everyone knows that the review process is so noisy, there is an incentive to submit articles that people know aren’t good enough. Some submitters likely reason that there is a reasonable chance of a `low quality’ article being accepted at top places. Thus, low reliability peer review systems may actually increase the number of submissions. Greater number of submissions, in turn, increases editors’ and reviewer’s load and hence reduces the quality of reviews, and lowers the reliability of recommendations still further. It is a vicious cycle. And the answer may be as simple as making the peer review process more reliable. At any rate, these data ought to be publicly released. Side-by-side, editors should consider experimenting with number of reviewers to collect more data on the point.
Quantifying the quality of reviews is a much harder problem. What do we mean by a good review? A review that points to important problems in the manuscript and, where possible, suggests solutions? Likely so. But this is much trickier to code. But perhaps there isn’t as much a point to quantifying this. What is needed perhaps is guidance. Much like child-rearing, there is no manual for reviewing. There really should be. What should reviewers attend to? What are they missing? And most critically, how do we incentivize this process?
When thinking about incentives, there are three parties whose incentives we need to restructure — the author, the editor, and the reviewer. Authors’ incentives can be restructured by making the process less noisy, as we discuss above. And by making submissions costly. All editors know this: electronic submissions have greatly increased the number of submissions. (It would be useful to study what the consequence of move to electronic submission has been on quality of articles.) As for the editors — if the editors are not blinded to the author (and the author knows this), they are likely to factor in the author’s status in choosing the reviewers, in whether or not to defer to the reviewers’ recommendations, and in making the final call. Thus we need triple blinded pipelines.
Whether or not the reviewer’s identity is known to the editor when s/he is reading the reviewer’s comments also likely affects reviewer’s contributions — in both good and bad ways. For instance, there is every chance that junior scholars in trying to impress editors file more negative reviews than they would if they would if they knew that the editor had no way of tying the identity of the reviewer with the review. Beyond altering anonymity, one way to incentivize reviewers would be to publish the reviews publicly, perhaps as part of the paper. Just like online appendices, we can have a set of reviews published online with each article.
With that, some concrete suggestions beyond the ones already discussed. Expectedly — given they come from a quantitative social scientist — they fall into two broad brackets: releasing and learning from the data already available, and collecting more data.
A fair bit of data can be potentially released without violating anonymity. For instance,
- Whether manuscript was desk rejected or not
- How many reviewers were invited
- Time taken by each reviewer to accept (NA for those from whom you never heard)
- Total time in review for each article (till R and R or reject) (And separate set of column for each revision)
- Time taken by each reviewer
- Recommendation by each reviewer
- Length of each review
- How many reviewers did the author(s) suggest?
- How often were suggested reviewers followed-up on?
In fact, much of the data submitted in multiple-choice question format can probably be released easily. If editors are hesitant, a group of scholars can come together and we can crowdsource collection of review data. People can deposit their reviews and the associated manuscript in a specific format to a server. And to maintain confidentiality, we can sandbox these data allowing scholars to run a variety of pre-screened scripts on it. Or else journals can institute similar mechanisms.
Collecting More Data
- In economics, people have tried to institute shorter deadlines for reviewers to effect of reducing review times. We can try that out.
- In terms of incentives, it may be a good idea to try out cash but also perhaps experimenting with a system where reviewers are told that their comments will be public. I, for one, think it would lead to more responsible reviewing. It would be also good to experiment with triple-blind reviewing.
If you have additional thoughts on the issue, please propose them at: https://gist.github.com/soodoku/b20e6d31d21e83ed5e39
Here’s to making advances in the production of science and our pursuit for truth.
Aim: Given a very large list of unique domains, find domains carrying adult content.
In the 2004 comScore browsing data, for instance, there are about a million unique domains. Comparing a million unique domain names against a large database is doable. But access to such databases doesn’t often come cheap. So a hack.
Start with an exhaustive key word search containing porn-related keywords. Here’s mine
breast, boy, hardcore, 18, queen, blowjob, movie, video, love, play, fun, hot, gal, pee, 69, naked, teen, girl, cam, sex, pussy, dildo, adult, porn, mature, sex, xxx, bbw, slut, whore, tit, pussy, sperm, gay, men, cheat, ass, booty, ebony, asian, brazilian, fuck, cock, cunt, lesbian, male, boob, cum, naughty
For the 2004 comScore data, this gives about 140k potential porn domains. Compare this list to the approximately 850k porn domains in the shallalist. This leaves us with a list of 68k domains with uncertain status. Use one of the many URL classification APIs. Using Trusted Source API, I get about 20k porn, and 48k non-porn.
This gives us the lower bound of adult domains. But perhaps much too low.
To estimate the false positives, take a large random sample (say 10,000 unique domains). Compare results from keyword search and eliminate using API to API search of all 10k domains. This will give you an estimate of false positive rate. But you can learn from the list of false negatives to improve your keyword search. And redo everything. A couple of iterations can produce a sufficiently low false negative rate (false positive rate is always ~ 0). (For 2004 comScore data, false negative rate of 5% is easily achieved.)