Sooooooo happy for you!!!!! π₯Ή ππππΌ
Sooooooo happy for you!!!!! π₯Ή ππππΌ
Screenshot of portion of article linked to in post, where Nature EiC says that checking underlying data is not the job of peer review.
The quotes from Nature EiC Magdalena Skipper about whether journals should be checking for errors/data quality as part of peer review are quite surprising to me.
https://www.wsj.com/science/whats-wrong-with-peer-review-e5d2d428?st=dhrnljoa74fujcv&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
I love working with grad students. I love it even more when they try to take forward steps despite uncertainty/confusion. Uncertainty/confusion is not just a part of learning or a sign of oneβs early career stage, itβs a part of science. It does not go away.
Interesting - I wonder if it will have any real impact.
If you havenβt seen it, new NIH review criteria coming for Jan 2025. #neuroskyence #psychscisky #cogsci
grants.nih.gov/grants/guide...
Follow my student @ldchurch.bsky.social who just joined Bluesky - she is the best!
I also hate it when they redo your figures. Multiple times Iβve minimized useless black (i.e., background) space around brain images, only to have the journal add black space in, so that now itβs 70% useless space and the actual data part is relatively smaller and thus lower resolution.
Clinical Science @ U Delaware is hiring for an open rank tenure-track position! Weβre open to research expertise in any area within clinical science (broadly defined), although weβre particularly interested in those who focus on developmental processes. Please forward to any who might be interested.
Also, mean centering essentially reduces colinearity by assigning shared variance to main effects (although not perfectly).
Donβt you always want to assign common variance to the main effects, given that the interaction is not the product term itself, but the product with main effects partialed out (Cohen 1978, Psych Bull)? So any shared variance shouldnβt belong to the interaction.
Effect size of the interaction or the main effects?
One thing Iβm curious about is what determines how much mean centering reduces the correlation b/t the product term & main effects, b/c it can vary a lot. I briefly tried figuring this out (ie avoided real work), but no luck. Iβd guess itβs some aspect of the multivariate distribution b/t X & Y?
Absolutely - I definitely wasnβt suggesting that we should partial main effects from the product term all the time - just that it does a better job of reducing the collinearity between the interaction and the main effects.
Since covid rumors and disinformation are increasingly migrating to Bluesky, here's a reminder that covid does not make people immunocompromised and is nothing like HIV. It's a myth based on crank theories and quotes taken out of context, but it just won't die.
If you split by X, for example, as the main effect of X increases, the lines will shift away from each other vertically. As the main effect of Y increases, both lines will tilt by the same amount. But if the main effects of X and Y are 0, the pattern will always be an X.
Specifically, the interaction effect alone is always a cross-over. All other patterns result from graphing both the interaction and βmain effectsβ.
My second thought was about your comment on ordinal vs. cross-over interactions. I realize these are common ways of describing βinteraction effectsβ, but thatβs confounding the actual interaction effect with the combined effects of the variables going into the interaction (i.e., X, Y, & XY).
Also, mean centering doesnβt remove the correlation entirely. There is a way to completely remove the correlation if you really want to: partial X & Y from XY.
First, I know itβs common to mean center X & Z before multiplying them, but the test of the interaction is unaffected by this, because the partialed product term is identical either way. This can be seen by creating product terms both ways and partialing the respective main effect terms from each.
Iβve also been confused why people are so down on interactions. Thanks for doing this! I had a couple of small thoughts after reading your post.
There was some discussion (on t'other place) about interactions (moderations) being hard to detect, which puzzled me. So I did some Rmd simulations, which I think suggest this may be an over-generalised concern. Have a look, and please correct me where wrong. www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/personal/rik...
Probably lots of zeros or other repeated values - unzipped each matrix entry is represented individually in memory, but (g)zipped it finds patterns (e.g., lots of zeros in a row) and saves the pattern descriptions, which are much smaller
βThe initial data leak wasβ¦ 1 million lines of data for Ashkenazi people.β
βThe informationβ¦ includes full names, usernames, profile photos, sex, date of birth, genetic ancestry results, and geographical location.β
Well, thatβs surely not going to be a fucking problem. (sarcastically)
π§ͺ
Thanks for the shout-out! For those who are interested, you can learn more about Reviewer Zero at our website, follow us at @reviewerzero.bsky.social and read our recent paper!
www.reviewerzero.net/home
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37676130/