The comparison of two independent proportions via Design Analysis: Theoretical background and an R implementation

In the last decade science has fallen into a replication crisis, this means that researches, when replicated, do not give the same results as the original ones. The difficulty in replicating studies can be due to several reasons, some of which regard the scientific world in general, such as the actual publication system that encourages incorrect behaviours and questionable research practices by scientists, and some that change between scientific fields. In fact, some scientific field feel this crisis more than others, and psychology is one of them. Low statistical power and misuse of statistics in psychology is reported from a long time. The first to criticize psychologist in regards of the use of power has been Cohen in 1962. This crisis can lead to the loss of trust in psychology and in science in general, for this reason it is important to find some solutions to the crisis.Several possible solutions have been proposed. In this work we will focus on Design analysis, that is quite a new notion that can help in the process of getting out of the replication crisis. This analysis consists in calculating (power, and) new type of inferential errors to help researchers to better understand the consequences of low power, small sample sizes and studies started without appropriate planning. Design analysis can be done prospectively and retrospectively, that is different from post-hoc power calculations. The aims of this work are mainly to extend the design analysis to the case of differences between independent proportions and to provide an R implementation that can be used by researchers.

Spreading Clio: a quantitative analysis of the first 25 years of the European Review of Economic History

This paper traces the history of the first 25 years of the European Economic History Review (EREH) comparing its initial agenda with its actual publication record and measuring its success with citation data. We rely on a database of all articles published in the EREH and in the four other top field journals from 1997 to 2020. The EREH has been a great success becoming, as planned at its establishment, the main outlet for continental European scholars and expanding somewhat its remit. Nonetheless, EREH needs to do an extra mile to fill the remaining gap with the more established field journals.

Introduction

This introduction attempts to situate railroads, which have rarely been the object of ethnographic attention, within current debates of anthropology and related disciplines. While mobility is certainly one dimension of human-railroad entanglements, the introduction calls to explore political, social, material, and affective lives of railroads in Europe and Asia as well. Often, connections provided by railroads are precarious at best: enveloped in state and local politics, they appear to some as promise and to others as menace. Planning, construction, decay, and reconstruction constitute the temporal and material life cycle of these infrastructures. Attending to particular ethnographic and historical contexts, the introduction aims to demonstrate how railroads, these potent symbols of modernity, continue to be good to think with. The version of record is December 2020, though the actual publication date is May/June 202.

Time to Acceptance of 3 Days for Papers About COVID-19

Time to acceptance from submission and time to publication (publication lag) determines how quickly novel information is made available to other scientists and experts. In the medical field, the review process and revisions usually takes 3–4 months; the total time from submission to publication is 8–9 months. During the COVID-19 pandemic, information should be available much faster. The analysis of 833 documents published on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 prior to 19 March 2020 shows that these times shrunk by a factor of ten. The median time to acceptance was three days for all publications, six days for research papers and reviews, four days for case studies and two days for other publication types. The median publication lag was nine days for all publications together, 11 days for research papers, nine days for case studies, 13 days for reviews and seven days for other publications. This demonstrates that the publication process—if necessary—can be sped up. For the sake of scientific accuracy, review times should not be pushed down, but the time from acceptance to actual publication could be shorter.

The Revising Process of ‘Kaisei Nihon Yochirotei Zenzu (Sekisui-zu)’

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> ‘Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu’ by Sekisui Nagakubo, measuring around 83&amp;thinsp;&amp;times;&amp;thinsp;134&amp;thinsp;cm and traditionally referred to as ‘Sekisui-zu’, is the earliest woodblock-printed map of Japan employing lines of longitude and latitude. Sekisui-zu is much more detailed than traditional maps like those of Ryūsen Ishikawa, with 4200 place names in the first edition compared with Ryūsen’s 900. Most of the first editions are hand-coloured in nine hues (presumably Yamato-e pigments), seven of which distinguish different regions. Sekisui-zu is still not a survey map but nevertheless acts with great geographical accuracy as a route map. This map of Japan was published a full 30 years in advance of the first surveyed manuscript map, by Tadataka Ino.</p><p>The first edition bears the printed date of ‘1779’ but, according to Sekisui`s documents, etc. its actual publication was in the next year. Sekisui scrutinised not only former maps and documents but also travellers’ communications so vigorously that he revised his map time and time again. The first edition alone was revised at least twelve times by replacing the parts of woodblock with implants of more accurate ones, by the time the second edition of complete replacement of wood block was released in 1791. Most notable replacement was at the north end of Honshu, east part of Kanto province and east part of the Seto Inland Sea. The woodblock used to print the area between the Hitachi and Musashi prefectures was also replaced more than three times, as it seems to have become impossible to re-carve.</p><p>The second edition was fully revised and contains more complex information, for example with nearly 6000 place names, most of which had been corrected by the first publication. This was revised only (at least) three times, mainly around the Izu Islands in a later issue. This edition was hand-colored in five different hues for each region. This was Sekisui’s last edition and three other editions, mostly colour printed, were released posthumously in 1811, 1834, and 1841. For eighty years of the late Edo period, Sekisui`s ‘Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu’ was accepted as the definitive map of Japan.<p>

The perceived role of null results in school psychology research and publication

Researchers appear to assume that published research is limited to significant findings. If that is the case, it may be related to perceived or actual publication bias (i.e., journals publishing only significant findings) and/or the file-drawer problem (i.e., researchers not pursuing publication of null results). The lack of published null results can result in faulty decision-making based upon incomplete evidence. Thus, it is important to know the prevalence of, and the contributing factors to, researchers' failure to submit null results. Few studies have addressed this issue in psychology and none have targeted school psychology. Consequently, this study examined the file drawer problem and perception of publication bias among school psychologists. Survey data from 95 school psychology faculty indicated that participants published about half of the studies that they had conducted, suggesting that the file drawer problem is experienced by this population. While lack of time appeared to impact publication pursuit, participants' responses also suggested they believed in publication bias. Obtaining null results substantially impacted the decision to write up studies in pursuit of publication. Therefore, it seems that a sizeable percentage of school psychology research is not available for review by researchers or practitioners.

From Arkham to New York

This chapter focuses on Ray Bradbury's trip to New York in 1946 where he met with various magazine editors and book publishers with the help of Don Congdon. Throughout 1946, Bradbury had to navigate the increasingly complicated process of bringing Dark Carnival to publication. August Derleth had originally expected to list Bradbury's first book as an Arkham House release for the summer or fall of 1946, but Bradbury's continuing revisions pushed the actual publication date to May 1947. This chapter discusses Bradbury's time in New York and the magazine editors and book publishers he met there, including Innes MacCammond, John Shaffner of Good Housekeeping, Charles Addams and Sam Cobean, Frederic Danay, and Paul Payne of Fiction House. It also describes Bradbury's first face-to-face meeting with Jack Snow, a promotional writer at NBC radio.

Comment on the “TrialsTracker: Automated ongoing monitoring of failure to share clinical trial results by all major companies and research institutions”

The purpose of this correspondence is to discuss the TrialsTracker, presented by Powell-Smith and Goldacre in their article ‘TrialsTracker: Automated ongoing monitoring of failure to share clinical trial results by all major companies and research institutions’ (2016) as a tool to discover publication bias in clinical trial results. The findings from one specific organization (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; EORTC) are compared with the actual publication history of the trials in question. We also present shortcomings of the method being used and suggestions for improvement to the proposed algorithm.

Making public ahead of print: Meetings and publications at the Royal Society, 1752–1892

This essay examines the interplay between the meetings and publications of learned scientific societies during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when journals were an established but not yet dominant form of scholarly communication. The ‘making public’ of research at meetings, long before actual ‘publication’ in society periodicals, enabled a complex of more or less formal sites of communication and discussion ahead of print. Using two case studies from the Royal Society of London—Jan Ingen-Housz in 1782 and John Tyndall in 1857 to 1858—we reveal how different individuals navigated and exploited the power structures, social activities and seasonal rhythms of learned societies, all necessary precursors to gaining admission to the editorial processes of society journals, and trace the shifting significance of meetings in the increasingly competitive and diverse realm of Victorian scientific publishing. We conclude by reflecting on the implications of these historical perspectives for current discussions of the ‘ends’ of the scientific journal.