2018 mid-term forecast

[abj13]

I don't think amused knows that PNAS still uses some of the worst forms of PAL review, not anonymous peer review.


"From the PNAS submissions instructions:

An Academy member may submit up to four of his or her own manuscripts for publication per year. To contribute an article, the member must affirm that he or she had a direct role in the design and execution of all or a significant fraction of the work and the subject matter must be within the member’s own area of expertise. Contributed articles must report the results of original research. [SKIPPING A FEW LINES HERE ABOUT FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, AND THEN…] When submitting using the contributed process, members must secure the comments of at least two qualified reviewers. Reviewers should be asked to evaluate revised manuscripts to ensure that their concerns have been adequately addressed. Members’ submissions must be accompanied by the names and contact information, including e-mails, of knowledgeable experts who reviewed the paper, along with all of the reviews received and the authors’ response for each round of review, and a brief statement endorsing publication in PNAS.

Did everyone catch that? The authors are responsible for obtaining their own reviews. They decide who the reviewers should be, contact them directly and obtain the critiques. Are you, as a PI, going to reject a National Academy of Science member’s manuscript from PNAS if you are asked to review it? It’s a great way to make friends! So is this really peer review? When your peer is aware that you, as a National Academy of Science (NAS) member, will be quite cross with her/him if you dare to make serious critiques (not to mention reject the manuscript)?

Okay–I know that it’s certainly not trivial to become a NAS member. Most of these researchers have certainly been chosen due to their long careers of excellent science. Many of them choose NOT to publish in PNAS because they know it is not viewed highly in some circles. But in can be used as a “dumping ground” for papers that have been unable to get into real peer reviewed journals.

Consider this, though. There is another track–a relatively new track–that PNAS allows, that in my view is even worse than the NAS contributor mode: It’s called “Direct Submission.” What does this mean? It means that the authors have secured in advance a”pre-arranged editor”? Oh–that smacks of a Soviet era style “ole boys network.” Find an editor in advance–a friend, colleague, mentor, brother, sister–someone who will agree in advance to get the paper published. Have a look at this, again from the PNAS submission site:

Prior to submission to PNAS, an author may ask an NAS member to oversee the review process of a Direct Submission. Prearranged editors should only be used when an article falls into an area without broad representation in the Academy, or for research that may be considered counter to a prevailing view or too far ahead of its time to receive a fair hearing, and in which the member is expert. If the NAS member agrees, the author should coordinate submission to ensure that the member is available, and should alert the member that he or she will be contacted by the PNAS Office within 48 hours of submission to confirm his or her willingness to serve as a prearranged editor and to comment on the importance of the work.

Now this actually manages to get around not one, but two levels of review". ................................

http://occamstypewriter.org/stevecaplan/2011/10/23/peer-review-and-the-ole-boys-network/
"

Your idiotic blog doesn't actually understand PNAS' review process and it doesn't even apply to the previously posted article. The PNAS article was a direct submission in which NO prearranged editor was selected for it, nor was it a contributed submission (using an Academy member for publication). The article underwent the routine peer review process that is used ubiquitously across major journals. The preexisting editor was Douglas Massey, all of this information is included in the journal article, which clearly you didn't read. All of the flailing from that blog is completely moot since it doesn't apply to the PNAS article. Next time I suggest you actually read your links before posting them.

 

[Commodus]

There are many elements involved...one of them being the home situation and parenting skills which are huge predictors of outcome. Tough to make a dent in the problem when more than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock and only 17% of black teenagers reach age 17 in a family with both their biological parents married (compared to 54 % for white teenagers). These are children in their formative years where constructive/destructive habits are formed and decisions are made that will effect them for their entire life.

I have no idea why you think the following is in anyway significant...except perhaps when used as a basis for rationalizing a derogatory stereotype.

It's not so much marriage that matters as whether or not there's a supportive family structure, so the figures don't tell the full story... but yeah, having just one parent and the economic hardship that frequently arises from that can affect your chances.

The irony for you is that fixing this would involve opposing the Republicans with every fiber of your being, since they're stripping away educational opportunities, stripping economic opportunities, and suppressing every tool that helps reduce unwanted pregnancies (sex education, contraception and, yes, abortion).

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's not so much marriage that matters as whether or not there's a supportive family structure, so the figures don't tell the full story... but yeah, having just one parent and the economic hardship that frequently arises from that can affect your chances.

The irony for you is that fixing this would involve opposing the Republicans with every fiber of your being, since they're stripping away educational opportunities, stripping economic opportunities, and suppressing every tool that helps reduce unwanted pregnancies (sex education, contraception and, yes, abortion).

I get your perspective and would love to share mine; however, the subjects you mention are complex and would require a lot of time that I don't have right now.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Your idiotic blog doesn't actually understand PNAS' review process and it doesn't even apply to the previously posted article. The PNAS article was a direct submission in which NO prearranged editor was selected for it, nor was it a contributed submission (using an Academy member for publication). The article underwent the routine peer review process that is used ubiquitously across major journals. The preexisting editor was Douglas Massey, all of this information is included in the journal article, which clearly you didn't read. All of the flailing from that blog is completely moot since it doesn't apply to the PNAS article. Next time I suggest you actually read your links before posting them.

Covered in my post. The referenced PNAS Meta-analysis was a "direct submission"
"This article is a PNAS Direct Submission."


http://occamstypewriter.org/stevecaplan/2011/10/23/peer-review-and-the-ole-boys-network/

................................"Consider this, though. There is another track–a relatively new track–that PNAS allows, that in my view is even worse than the NAS contributor mode: It’s called “Direct Submission.” What does this mean? It means that the authors have secured in advance a”pre-arranged editor”? Oh–that smacks of a Soviet era style “ole boys network.” Find an editor in advance–a friend, colleague, mentor, brother, sister–someone who will agree in advance to get the paper published. Have a look at this, again from the PNAS submission site:

Prior to submission to PNAS, an author may ask an NAS member to oversee the review process of a Direct Submission. Prearranged editors should only be used when an article falls into an area without broad representation in the Academy, or for research that may be considered counter to a prevailing view or too far ahead of its time to receive a fair hearing, and in which the member is expert. If the NAS member agrees, the author should coordinate submission to ensure that the member is available, and should alert the member that he or she will be contacted by the PNAS Office within 48 hours of submission to confirm his or her willingness to serve as a prearranged editor and to comment on the importance of the work.

Now this actually manages to get around not one, but two levels of review". ..............

 

[abj13]

Covered in my post. The referenced PNAS Meta-analysis was a "direct submission"
"This article is a PNAS Direct Submission."


http://occamstypewriter.org/stevecaplan/2011/10/23/peer-review-and-the-ole-boys-network/

................................"Consider this, though. There is another track–a relatively new track–that PNAS allows, that in my view is even worse than the NAS contributor mode: It’s called “Direct Submission.” What does this mean? It means that the authors have secured in advance a”pre-arranged editor”? Oh–that smacks of a Soviet era style “ole boys network.” Find an editor in advance–a friend, colleague, mentor, brother, sister–someone who will agree in advance to get the paper published. Have a look at this, again from the PNAS submission site:

Prior to submission to PNAS, an author may ask an NAS member to oversee the review process of a Direct Submission. Prearranged editors should only be used when an article falls into an area without broad representation in the Academy, or for research that may be considered counter to a prevailing view or too far ahead of its time to receive a fair hearing, and in which the member is expert. If the NAS member agrees, the author should coordinate submission to ensure that the member is available, and should alert the member that he or she will be contacted by the PNAS Office within 48 hours of submission to confirm his or her willingness to serve as a prearranged editor and to comment on the importance of the work.

Now this actually manages to get around not one, but two levels of review". ..............

No. You still don't even understand what is going. For direct submissions you had the OPTION of applying for a prearranged editor if "only be used when an article falls into an area without broad representation in the Academy, or for research that may be considered counter to a prevailing view or too far ahead of its time to receive a fair hearing, and in which the member is expert."

The authors of the PNAS article DID NOT SUBMIT to a prearranged editor. This is the review process that was performed on the journal manuscript in question: http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/reviewprocess.pdf

In fact, the prearranged editor is no longer an option any submission to PNAS after 2014: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/40/14311.full

"Although we are certain that some of these papers truly needed special attention, the vast majority likely did not, and therefore we are discontinuing the PE process as of October 1, 2014. We will continue to honor the current PE submissions."

 

[fskimospy]

Covered in my post. The referenced PNAS Meta-analysis was a "direct submission"
"This article is a PNAS Direct Submission."


http://occamstypewriter.org/stevecaplan/2011/10/23/peer-review-and-the-ole-boys-network/

................................"Consider this, though. There is another track–a relatively new track–that PNAS allows, that in my view is even worse than the NAS contributor mode: It’s called “Direct Submission.” What does this mean? It means that the authors have secured in advance a”pre-arranged editor”? Oh–that smacks of a Soviet era style “ole boys network.” Find an editor in advance–a friend, colleague, mentor, brother, sister–someone who will agree in advance to get the paper published. Have a look at this, again from the PNAS submission site:

Prior to submission to PNAS, an author may ask an NAS member to oversee the review process of a Direct Submission. Prearranged editors should only be used when an article falls into an area without broad representation in the Academy, or for research that may be considered counter to a prevailing view or too far ahead of its time to receive a fair hearing, and in which the member is expert. If the NAS member agrees, the author should coordinate submission to ensure that the member is available, and should alert the member that he or she will be contacted by the PNAS Office within 48 hours of submission to confirm his or her willingness to serve as a prearranged editor and to comment on the importance of the work.

Now this actually manages to get around not one, but two levels of review". ..............

You might want to stop digging now, haha.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Ugh. What could have been an interesting discussion about the midterms started out poorly, then was consumed by this idiotic "is there racism, or are real white people the victims" debate. Again.

 

[Amused]

What is just so funny here is the the article Imported posted makes no claim that unworthy papers makes it into PNAS.

In fact, it makes the opposite claim, that while the peer review is good and the screening process does keep out unworthy studies, it also can tend to exclude possibly worthy studies. Unknowns not in the "good ole boys club" have a harder time.

He has a comment section. In this comment section he has a conversation with someone verifying what I just said.

Yet another case of that website doesn't say what you think it says.

And yet another deflection. He attacks one of the most respected journals in an attempt to undermine the credibility of what has been called the most definitive meta study on racism in hiring to date.

Desperate ploy is desperate and only proves your remarkable bias rooted in your need to deny racism actually exists.

 

[Jhhnn]

What is just so funny here is the the article Imported posted makes no claim that unworthy papers makes it into PNAS.

In fact, it makes the opposite claim, that while the peer review is good and the screening process does keep out unworthy studies, it also can tend to exclude possibly worthy studies. Unknowns not in the "good ole boys club" have a harder time.

He has a comment section. In this comment section he has a conversation with someone verifying what I just said.

Yet another case of that website doesn't say what you think it says.

And yet another deflection. He attacks one of the most respected journals in an attempt to undermine the credibility of what has been called the most definitive meta study on racism in hiring to date.

Desperate ploy is desperate and only proves your remarkable bias rooted in your need to deny racism actually exists.

Taj is just casting innuendo. Maybe he & slow think the election will be about the pitiful plight of the oh-so oppressed straight white male. I mean, I feel horribly oppressed. Don't you?

 

[zinfamous]

I don't think amused knows that PNAS still uses some of the worst forms of PAL review, not anonymous peer review.


"From the PNAS submissions instructions:

An Academy member may submit up to four of his or her own manuscripts for publication per year. To contribute an article, the member must affirm that he or she had a direct role in the design and execution of all or a significant fraction of the work and the subject matter must be within the member’s own area of expertise. Contributed articles must report the results of original research. [SKIPPING A FEW LINES HERE ABOUT FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, AND THEN…] When submitting using the contributed process, members must secure the comments of at least two qualified reviewers. Reviewers should be asked to evaluate revised manuscripts to ensure that their concerns have been adequately addressed. Members’ submissions must be accompanied by the names and contact information, including e-mails, of knowledgeable experts who reviewed the paper, along with all of the reviews received and the authors’ response for each round of review, and a brief statement endorsing publication in PNAS.

Did everyone catch that? The authors are responsible for obtaining their own reviews. They decide who the reviewers should be, contact them directly and obtain the critiques. Are you, as a PI, going to reject a National Academy of Science member’s manuscript from PNAS if you are asked to review it? It’s a great way to make friends! So is this really peer review? When your peer is aware that you, as a National Academy of Science (NAS) member, will be quite cross with her/him if you dare to make serious critiques (not to mention reject the manuscript)?

Okay–I know that it’s certainly not trivial to become a NAS member. Most of these researchers have certainly been chosen due to their long careers of excellent science. Many of them choose NOT to publish in PNAS because they know it is not viewed highly in some circles. But in can be used as a “dumping ground” for papers that have been unable to get into real peer reviewed journals.

Consider this, though. There is another track–a relatively new track–that PNAS allows, that in my view is even worse than the NAS contributor mode: It’s called “Direct Submission.” What does this mean? It means that the authors have secured in advance a”pre-arranged editor”? Oh–that smacks of a Soviet era style “ole boys network.” Find an editor in advance–a friend, colleague, mentor, brother, sister–someone who will agree in advance to get the paper published. Have a look at this, again from the PNAS submission site:

Prior to submission to PNAS, an author may ask an NAS member to oversee the review process of a Direct Submission. Prearranged editors should only be used when an article falls into an area without broad representation in the Academy, or for research that may be considered counter to a prevailing view or too far ahead of its time to receive a fair hearing, and in which the member is expert. If the NAS member agrees, the author should coordinate submission to ensure that the member is available, and should alert the member that he or she will be contacted by the PNAS Office within 48 hours of submission to confirm his or her willingness to serve as a prearranged editor and to comment on the importance of the work.

Now this actually manages to get around not one, but two levels of review". ................................

http://occamstypewriter.org/stevecaplan/2011/10/23/peer-review-and-the-ole-boys-network/
"

That isn't true at all. Let me guess: you've never submitted an article for review to PNAS, and don't know anyone else who has, either, right? I also suspect that you have exactly zero understanding of how any of this works in science.

 

[shortylickens]

BUMP!


Experts predict Donald is fucking his party very hard.

https://shareblue.com/imperiling-th...arns-trump-will-doom-republicans-in-november/

The Yes-Men are nothing but trouble, and mid-terms will go badly for them.

A Washington Post profile of California Rep. Kevin McCarthy detailed just how far Republicans are willing to go to placate Trump. McCarthy actually had a staffer go through a bag of Starburst candies and pick out the pink and red ones — Trump’s favorites flavors — so they could be given to Trump in a jar.

It’s that sort of pathetic attention that has helped McCarthy lift his personal stock within the Trump orbit of loyalists, according to the Post.

 

[Commodus]

BUMP!

Experts predict Donald is fucking his party very hard.

https://shareblue.com/imperiling-th...arns-trump-will-doom-republicans-in-november/

The Yes-Men are nothing but trouble, and mid-terms will go badly for them.

I wish that site didn't try to keep editorializing, but the source data kinda says it all, really: in the House, at least, the Dems stand a good chance of winning simply through sheer numbers. My question is the Senate -- I know that there aren't many seats up for grabs, and those that are open aren't necessarily in states where change is likely. With that said, the GOP's fumble with Moore gives the Democrats a better chance than they had before.

 

[manly]

I wish that site didn't try to keep editorializing, but the source data kinda says it all, really: in the House, at least, the Dems stand a good chance of winning simply through sheer numbers. My question is the Senate -- I know that there aren't many seats up for grabs, and those that are open aren't necessarily in states where change is likely. With that said, the GOP's fumble with Moore gives the Democrats a better chance than they had before.

538 guesstimates about a 1 in 3 chance of flipping the Senate. It might be a little worse than that, the Senate map is extremely unfavorable for Dems this year. But the reason we’re even discussing this is because the Democratic Party does have wind at its backs.

 

[Commodus]

538 guesstimates about a 1 in 3 chance of flipping the Senate. It might be a little worse than that, the Senate map is extremely unfavorable for Dems this year. But the reason we’re even discussing this is because the Democratic Party does have wind at its backs.

That's what I suspected. Of course, if the Dems take just one side of Congress, Trump's agenda (outside of executive orders) grinds to a permanent halt. That's what Trump doesn't seem to realize... the only reason he's had any success at all is because he had a Republican Congress so thirsty for power that it would rubber stamp absolutely anything. There's a good chance his dream is over in about 10 months.

 

[fskimospy]

That's what I suspected. Of course, if the Dems take just one side of Congress, Trump's agenda (outside of executive orders) grinds to a permanent halt. That's what Trump doesn't seem to realize... the only reason he's had any success at all is because he had a Republican Congress so thirsty for power that it would rubber stamp absolutely anything. There's a good chance his dream is over in about 10 months.

I think it is the other way around. Trump is rubber stamping anything the republicans in Congress come up with. I don’t think we have ever had a weaker president.

 

[K1052]

I think it is the other way around. Trump is rubber stamping anything the republicans in Congress come up with. I don’t think we have ever had a weaker president.

Not in anybody on this boards lifetime to be sure. He has no major initiatives that are actually moving and is so easily manipulated by aides, news outlets, and rouge congressmen that he probably couldn't negotiate a bipartisan deal reaffirming the name of the country he is president of.

 

[Commodus]

I think it is the other way around. Trump is rubber stamping anything the republicans in Congress come up with. I don’t think we have ever had a weaker president.

Well, yes and no. There's definite alignment between the two in some places (such as gutting health care and cutting taxes for the rich). The problem, as you suggested, is that Trump has little sense of independence. He believes whatever Fox & Friends and the party tell him, unless it's to tell him that he won't succeed.

 

[theeedude]

Trump is toxic. Any other president with this economy would be polling 20% higher, regardless of whether he deserves credit.

 

[bshole]

BUMP!


Experts predict Donald is fucking his party very hard.

https://shareblue.com/imperiling-th...arns-trump-will-doom-republicans-in-november/

The Yes-Men are nothing but trouble, and mid-terms will go badly for them.

After the bullshit predictions of a Clinton landslide, I would trust the expert predictions as much a local evangelical preacher's predictions.

Democrats making predictions of victory is no substitute for creating a platform that appeals to middle America, selling that platform and most importantly implementing that platform.

 

[theeedude]

Pennsylvania supreme court may undo Republican gerrymanders. That could cost them 4-5 seats right there.

 

[hal2kilo]

BUMP!


Experts predict Donald is fucking his party very hard.

https://shareblue.com/imperiling-th...arns-trump-will-doom-republicans-in-november/

The Yes-Men are nothing but trouble, and mid-terms will go badly for them.

Slurp, slurp, various sucking sounds....

 

[soundforbjt]

Trump is looking forward to spending 2018 touring the country and rallying for republican s in the midterms. I’m curious as to how many will want him around them

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Slurp, slurp, various sucking sounds....

You mean like this?

 

[IronWing]

Trump is looking forward to spending 2018 touring the country and rallying for republican s in the midterms. I’m curious as to how many will want him around them

They'll want him for the primaries and have a complete failure of memory that he ever campaigned for them come the general.

 

[Puffnstuff]

You mean like this?

And I was expecting to hear ducks....ROFL