Elizabeth Wrigley-Field

Thinking about doing something new in my #PopulationModeling grad class:

We're covering decomposition methods & I recently got reviews back on a paper where R1 didn't understand the decomposition & R2 didn't like it

So I'm gonna give students the relevant portion of manuscript & reviews & have them decide: What should I do? Should I keep the decomposition -- then how should I answer reviewers? Should I ditch it -- then how should I analyze these questions instead?

#Teaching advice welcome!

Jan 27, 2023 at 3:06amWeb
Show threadDimitri DrekonjaJan 27, 2023
@wrigleyfield I like it. I find it really illuminating to show trainees reviews I’ve received- helps them understand peer review is not some uniform process that always is correct- sometimes (often!) there is significant disagreement. One of my papers was eventually accepted into a high-profile journal, and the reviewers were at complete odds as to whether the per-protocol or intention to treat analysis was appropriate for the primary analysis 🤷🏻
Show threadElizabeth Wrigley-FieldJan 27, 2023
@ddrekonja Oh, I love that. I've always wanted to show students before-and-after-reviews drafts, but the papers I've had that changed a lot are too long and/or too technical for it to work well--too much effort overhead, I think.
Show threadJames FeigenbaumJan 27, 2023

@wrigleyfield Can you outsource some of our referee report responses to your students too?

Unless this is our paper and you can mention that your coauthor is as lost as the referees...

Show threadElizabeth Wrigley-FieldJan 27, 2023
@jamesfeigenbaum Different paper! You’re right, I should have them do it all. I can take up Yahtzee.
Show threadBrian C. Martinson, PhDJan 27, 2023
@wrigleyfield This is a great idea. Might engage students on whether you have any obligation to help R1 understand the method used, or just tell them they're wrong. And if R2 proposed an alt decomp method - have them discuss pros and cons of the proposed alt, your chosen method, and why you chose it?