@jayvanbavel I did not find your twit on papers: It would be interesting to compare direct vs. contributed submissions on objective measures of quality and see if there is a noticeable difference. Here is one in the same lines https://t.co/lFgRVsF0xI
@paudelbb @lpachter @BillAckman I was thinking the same thing since I had read this thread. Plus there was a blog also which I'm unable to find now that made the same case. https://t.co/P5mxIPhz0H
@samuelmehr @KMKing_Psych Thanks! Here's the paper for those who are curious https://t.co/2ZoJt3VRut
@itschekkers @PNASNews It's capped at 2 per year (I don't know when that cap was instated). There are a couple studies on differences between PNAS Contributed and Direct track papers' impact: https://t.co/44vYudZw9w https://t.co/XVf0o0h5k5
@edyong209 @nataliexdean FWIW citation analysis found Contributed papers had fewer average citations 4 years out from publication compared to the normal peer reviewed PNAS papers BUT variance was higher, s/t most-cited Contributed did best- some support
RT @VPrasadMDMPH: I see folks are now discovering what @DG_Rand studied more than a decade ago.... https://t.co/rU2DOigJ8c
RT @VPrasadMDMPH: I see folks are now discovering what @DG_Rand studied more than a decade ago.... https://t.co/rU2DOigJ8c
RT @VPrasadMDMPH: I see folks are now discovering what @DG_Rand studied more than a decade ago.... https://t.co/rU2DOigJ8c
@nataliexdean @edyong209 I sl. misrembered this study. Contributed papers on average, cited less than other tracks (track I doesn't exist anymore). But of top 10% cited papers in all tracks, contributed papers stand out. I.e. NAS members contributed their
I see folks are now discovering what @DG_Rand studied more than a decade ago.... https://t.co/rU2DOigJ8c
RT @KenichiTsuda4: @rei_nari 10年前くらいの論文ですが、contributed はtop10%もbottom10%も多く全体的には引用回数は少ないという結果が出てました。今とは仕組みが違うのでなんとも言えませんが。ただびっくりするほどの差はないよう…
RT @KenichiTsuda4: @rei_nari 10年前くらいの論文ですが、contributed はtop10%もbottom10%も多く全体的には引用回数は少ないという結果が出てました。今とは仕組みが違うのでなんとも言えませんが。ただびっくりするほどの差はないよう…
RT @KenichiTsuda4: @rei_nari 10年前くらいの論文ですが、contributed はtop10%もbottom10%も多く全体的には引用回数は少ないという結果が出てました。今とは仕組みが違うのでなんとも言えませんが。ただびっくりするほどの差はないよう…
@hardsci FWIW, we did a citation analysis and found that Contributed papers had a (slightly) lower average citation count 4 years out from publication compared to the normal peer reviewed PNAS papers - but the variance was higher s/t most cited Contributed
RT @KenichiTsuda4: @rei_nari 10年前くらいの論文ですが、contributed はtop10%もbottom10%も多く全体的には引用回数は少ないという結果が出てました。今とは仕組みが違うのでなんとも言えませんが。ただびっくりするほどの差はないよう…
@rei_nari 10年前くらいの論文ですが、contributed はtop10%もbottom10%も多く全体的には引用回数は少ないという結果が出てました。今とは仕組みが違うのでなんとも言えませんが。ただびっくりするほどの差はないようです。 https://t.co/RtevY7MXBs
@talyarkoni @siminevazire Turns out the results are robust to controlling for author effects - this wasn't in the paper but is reported here: https://t.co/AP4UySrdnY (Yay post-publication review)
@siminevazire FWIW A while ago I wrote a paper comparing citation counts across the different PNAS tracks - Contributed papers do somewhat worse on avg, but better at the top end. Our interpretation was you might contribute b/c paper is bad, or really gro
@GordPennycook You know I have a paper investigating this empirically, right? https://t.co/2ZoJt3VRut
@betsylevyp But the 10% most cited are cited MORE than 10% most cited Direct submissions! https://t.co/rFS9qxYfdL
the science of the contributed submission @NikolaiAdamski @KamounLab http://t.co/OfbuRJVWw8
the science of the contributed submission @NikolaiAdamski @KamounLab http://t.co/OfbuRJVWw8
the science of the contributed submission @NikolaiAdamski @KamounLab http://t.co/OfbuRJVWw8
the science of the contributed submission @NikolaiAdamski @KamounLab http://t.co/OfbuRJVWw8
the science of the contributed submission @NikolaiAdamski @KamounLab http://t.co/OfbuRJVWw8
@ericmjohnson @HollyDunsworth "contributed" track for submission allows academy members to get their own reviewers http://t.co/X0mZ8pgsyl
MT @David_G_Rand My paper "Systematic Differences in Impact across Tracks at PNAS" that the recent analysis builds on http://t.co/7VaFmRUDRO
And heres my paper "Systematic Differences in Impact across Publication Tracks at PNAS" this new analysis builds on http://t.co/B6XQA7r4A6
@ZombieAntGuy @edyong209 FWIW bibliometrics=> Contributed papers worse on average, but more likely to be exceptional http://t.co/f3JUL6dp5F
@gamesevolving @ericmjohnson @john_s_wilkins might be interested in this paper comparing impact across PNAS tracks http://t.co/dKHGmvzszn
#PLOSONE: Systematic Differences in Impact across Publication Tracks at PNAS http://t.co/5LWDR1AlXn
#PLOSONE: Systematic Differences in Impact across Publication Tracks at PNAS http://t.co/5LWDR1AlXn
@ZombieAntGuy @edyong209 This paper suggests 'contributed' papers at PNAS have lower mean, higher variance, citations http://t.co/tYFi4g6PzG
PNAS “Contributed” papers show increased probability of publishing exceptional papers.http://t.co/q8ReoIDknt
PNASはContributionってのに注意か。知らんかった。 http://t.co/7yemFgNH http://t.co/mFuHRnXC
PNASはContributionってのに注意か。知らんかった。 http://t.co/7yemFgNH http://t.co/mFuHRnXC
@deevybee @xtaldave PNAS publication tracks and impact http://t.co/ZUCqyZ56
interesting “@GuyHorev: @leonidkruglyak @NEroshenko surprizing effect of a different peer review processes #figure3 http://t.co/ttRLpMKJ”
RT @GuyHorev: @leonidkruglyak @NEroshenko surprizing effect of a different peer review processes #figure3 http://t.co/RT4xo7m7
RT @GuyHorev: @leonidkruglyak @NEroshenko surprizing effect of a different peer review processes #figure3 http://t.co/RT4xo7m7
@leonidkruglyak @NEroshenko surprizing effect of a different peer review processes #figure3 http://t.co/RT4xo7m7