The pdf is attached.
[Admin note: I edited the title to conform with guidelines. -Emil]
Back to [Archive] Post-review discussions
Can some kind soul please review this paper?
Can you please attach the file?
The text of the paper is contained in the initial post.
I don't see any reason not to publish this. But the author needs to upload a PDF since we don't just publish raw texts.
I was under the impression that paper submissions could be contained in a forum post?
I was under the impression that paper submissions could be contained in a forum post?
The thing is that if we start accepting that, it means that editors will have to convert the forum post into a PDF. This adds extra workload to the editors. Additionally, they may format it in a way that the author does not like. For these reasons, it is best that the author submits a PDF that can easily be uploaded.
Seems reasonable?
I have added the .pdf to the original post
I think the formatting need improvement to fit with Google Scholar's requirements, but approve of publication as it is.
How so?
How so?
From the submission sticky:
Formatting
We focus on the science, not the formal requirement. We don't want scientists to spend more time formatting papers than writing them. For this reason we have minimal requirements for formatting. Basically, it should look like academic writing. Use any reference system you like, as long as it is sensible.
However, Google Scholar has certain requirements for indexing papers properly. Authors are recommended to follow these requirement as it will ease the indexing of their own work.
To summarize, they are:
- Font size 24 for title.
- Font size 16 for authors.
- No author affiliation on the same line as authors (use footnotes).
- Include a citation of the paper itself in the header.
- Use only the major reference formats. They seem to prefer numbered references instead of APA-style (name, year).
As I said before, I don't want to encumber people with unnecessary requirements, but if the author wants to be indexed by Google Scholar (who doesn't?), it seems a good idea to conform to their requirements.
We made this easy by supplying a template one can download and use. :)
Attached.
Attached.
Much better. :)
[This paper is partly drawn from my blog post here: http://elijahlarmstrong.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/what-is-the-source-of-the-relation-between-rule-dependence-and-flynn-effects/]
The pdf is attached.
[Admin note: I edited the title to conform with guidelines. -Emil]
Can you propose ways of testing your hypotheses? Also, would it be possible to extend this research by looking at the relation between rule dependance, cultural load, g load, etc. (I attached MH and my file, which you are free to use, for 46 batteries.) Also, if you want, I could dig up our WISC/WAIS flynn effect data so you could check if the rule dependence x flynn effect association is mediated by non-g and non-shared environment for these batteries. We also have measures of fluid/nonfluid intelligence load for other batteries so you could partially test the working memory hypothesis (as WM is highly correlated with FI).
Generally, what you have is fine for what it is. But you could extend this project some -- if you want.
This paper is intended to be a brief review, so the analysis you propose would be somewhat inappropriate for the paper. It is worth doing, though.
You wrote "A systematic review (not an unsystematic review,
such as that conducted in the paper) of rule-dependence numbers and Flynn effect magnitudes that corrects for these sources of error - viz., few tests, few raters, and unreliability - would probably yield a higher correlation"
Then do this. This paper as it currently stands is not publishable.
No definition of rule dependance is provided. None of the hypotheses is empirically tested. This looks like a summary of Woodley and Armstrong's paper and does not contribute anything substantially novel.
After the hypotheses have been tested, this paper might be published. But in its current form, it's not even close to being a rough draft.
such as that conducted in the paper) of rule-dependence numbers and Flynn effect magnitudes that corrects for these sources of error - viz., few tests, few raters, and unreliability - would probably yield a higher correlation"
Then do this. This paper as it currently stands is not publishable.
No definition of rule dependance is provided. None of the hypotheses is empirically tested. This looks like a summary of Woodley and Armstrong's paper and does not contribute anything substantially novel.
After the hypotheses have been tested, this paper might be published. But in its current form, it's not even close to being a rough draft.
You wrote "A systematic review (not an unsystematic review,
such as that conducted in the paper) of rule-dependence numbers and Flynn effect magnitudes that corrects for these sources of error - viz., few tests, few raters, and unreliability - would probably yield a higher correlation"
Then do this. This paper as it currently stands is not publishable.
No definition of rule dependance is provided. None of the hypotheses is empirically tested. This looks like a summary of Woodley and Armstrong's paper and does not contribute anything substantially novel.
After the hypotheses have been tested, this paper might be published. But in its current form, it's not even close to being a rough draft.
As the author notes, it's not intended to be an empirical paper. It's what is sometimes called a "brief communication" or a "letter". Many journals don't like this kind of material since the cost of publication makes it not worth it. We, however, have 0 cost of publication (except for editor's time), so this is not a problem.
As the author notes, it's not intended to be an empirical paper. It's what is sometimes called a "brief communication" or a "letter". Many journals don't like this kind of material since the cost of publication makes it not worth it. We, however, have 0 cost of publication (except for editor's time), so this is not a problem.
Yes, but even for a brief communication, it does not meet the standards for our journal.
This paper is not just a summary, but a clearer presentation of the hypotheses of the RDM - a clearer presentation that, in my opinion, improves on the original authors’ paper.
Well, our journal does not have an editor, so there can be no "Letter to the editor". However, it could be considered a "brief communication" and this article overall conforms to the guidelines for a brief communication, for example "Nature Neuroscience" ("A Brief Communication reports a concise study of high quality and broad interest. This format may not exceed 3 printed pages. Brief Communications begin with a brief unreferenced abstract (3 sentences, no more than 70 words), which will appear on Medline. The main text is typically 1,000-1,200 words, including abstract, references and figure legends, and contains no headings").
I believe that with some modifications (which will actually make it high quality) it can be published, as long as it is SPECIFIED that it is a brief communication, perhaps in the headline.
The suggested modifications would be proposing ways of testing hypotheses and maybe providing a concise definition of "rule dependence", as not everybody knows what this means. Once this is done, this paper will be publishable.
I believe that with some modifications (which will actually make it high quality) it can be published, as long as it is SPECIFIED that it is a brief communication, perhaps in the headline.
The suggested modifications would be proposing ways of testing hypotheses and maybe providing a concise definition of "rule dependence", as not everybody knows what this means. Once this is done, this paper will be publishable.
© Copyright 2024 OpenPsych - All Rights Reserved