Archive for academic publisher

scolded!

Posted in Books, Kids, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , on October 9, 2026 by xi'an

I recently received a request for refereeing a paper for a journal I had never heard of, in a field far, far away from my own, with an abstract that indicated little innovation beyond transferring a by now standard technique to this very field. Given the volume of such requests, I immediately declined and received the scolding and peeved reply, as of below, from said journal editor! (The above picture is from Bayesian Core, not from the paper submitted.)

Invited Reviewer:

Thank you for letting us know that you are not willing to review the submission, “Bayesian Analysis of Mixtures with an Unknown Number of Components &tc,” for Journal of Some Socio-Economics Issues®.

It is most unfortunate that you did not choose to make your impression that “the contents sound very standard given the existing literature” known to the author/s on behalf of the Journal.  It would certainly have aided them in the longer run.
We also find it rather extraordinary for a potential reviewer to turn down an invitation “because there is little possibility I [will] ever publish in your journal”.  So much for fostering your discipline and academic excellence outside of a specific circle of publications … 

Best regards,

The editor

positive response to negative mixtures

Posted in pictures, Running with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 17, 2024 by xi'an

Hurray, our signed mixture simulation paper has been accepted by Statistics & Computing! If Og’s readers remember my earlier post about this problem, things get surprisingly more complicated when the mixture weights can take negative values. For instance, the naïve solution consisting in first simulating from the associated mixture of positive weight components and then using an accept-reject step may prove highly inefficient since the overall probability of acceptance can get arbitrarily close to zero. Substituting to this naïve version, we construct an alternative accept-reject scheme based on pairing positive and negative components as efficiently as possible, partitioning the real line, and finding tighter upper and lower bounds on positive and negative components, respectively, towards yielding a higher acceptance rate on average. In retrospect, the problem was beyond the reach of the undergraduate students we supervised (pre-COVID) on a research internship!

Bye’ ometrika

Posted in Books, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on February 1, 2024 by xi'an

preprints promote confusion and distorsion, and don’t blame journalists!

Posted in Books, pictures, Travel, University life with tags , , , , , , , , on October 4, 2018 by xi'an

“…anyone considering publicizing a preprint have a responsibility.”

On my way to the airport, flying to B’ham, I read an older issue of Nature that contained this incredible editorial entry from Tom Sheldon Tim Horton, calling for regulation of preprints or worse, for the reason that journalists could misunderstand their contents and over-hype a minor or worse wrong claim. Taking as mistaken illustration the case of the Séralini et al. paper, about the Monsanto maize, which happened to be published under “embargo” conditions and reproduced in most media before a scientific storm erupted on the lack of significance of the samples. This call is unbelievably cheeky and downright absurd as it shifts the responsibility away from the journalists to the scientific community, throwing the “check your sources” principle of investigative journalism down the drain. As if the only reason for immediately publishing front-page discoveries is not to beat the competition and attract more readers…

The irony of seeing this piece in Nature is that a few pages later, there is a news entry on German and Swedish institutions breaking negotiations with Elsevier, as the publisher refuses to join a global package of open source publications. Nothing seems amiss about this nice aspect of scientific publishing with the author of this editorial, nor with the further reports of retraction of published paper in the same issue. Presumably because journalists have already moved to the next hot discovery by the time the retractions at last appear…! And to answer the final question of “Should all preprints be emblazoned with a warning aimed at journalists that work has not been peer reviewed?”, no, no, and no: preprints are not written for journalists or the general public. Unsurprisingly, the tribune induced outraged reactions from Nature readers.