The winter is dark Until I remember the Leftover pizza
Yeah, no fixing to zero, just show the point estimates with some kind of measure of uncertainty such as confidence/prediction/posterior intervals depending on what the point estimates are and how they were estimated.
Still time to apply! Multiple options to do methodological and applied research on panel data @invest-flagship.bsky.social#stats#sociology#bayes#lifecourse#econ#longitudinal#timeseries#rstats#Psychology#AcademicSkyats.talentadore.com/apply/erikoi...
We are looking for a Senior Researcher interested in interested in e.g., #causalinference, #bayes #stats, #lifecourse studies, #sociology, #econ, #rstats, #longitudinal register data etc: ats.talentadore.com/apply/erikoi... #metasci #econsky #AcademicSky #PhDSky #tutkimus
The Faculty of Social Sciences, INVEST Research and Flagship Centre at the University of Turku invites applications for contract-based, fixed term position of senior researcher from 01.03.2024 to 31.0...
Also, maybe some reviewers are less prone to openly endorse acceptance of more controversial papers (and these might also have more reviewers -> less likely to get consent for everyone). On the other hand, these papers might be get more citations than "basic papers"?
Maybe bigger names only want their names associated with papers which they find very significant, so giving consent for open review depends on the quality of the paper, and quality also affects the future citations.
Looks interesting, but I wouldn't put too much weight on this paper. 1) this is only about naming reviewers after reviews, not actually open comments. 2) There is likely still selection bias and confounding present, for example, authors might be more interested in naming bigger names as reviewers.
