tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post172383701645014989..comments2024-03-26T19:10:00.791-04:00Comments on West Coast Stat Views (on Observational Epidemiology and more): New York Times definition of the week: "full-fledged investigation" = one Google search UPDATEDJosephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10760453165301871031noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-16799053843148395552015-10-09T11:36:46.008-04:002015-10-09T11:36:46.008-04:00Really, I do not have very much to say. The New Yo...Really, I do not have very much to say. The New York Times book review is supposed to be worth reading because of their expertise in choosing the right reviewer is to review the right books. I see no signs that there is any such expertise. Come to think of it, I cannot remember any time in the past when there was. I have been impressed at how often the New York review of books gets the right person to review the right book. I cannot remember thinking the same about the New York Times book review...<br /><br />Brad DeLongbradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04548019979157668776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-72790571849532776162015-10-06T19:38:31.725-04:002015-10-06T19:38:31.725-04:00Mark:
I agree. I think it would've been bett...Mark:<br /><br />I agree. I think it would've been better for the editor to just say, "We didn't think of checking for a conflict of interest." But maybe that wouldn't have sounded so good.<br /><br />Also, I wouldn't call Ferguson a right-wing ideologue. I think "conservative" is more accurate than "right-wing," and I think "hack" is more accurate than "ideologue." The difference is that I think Ferguson says what he wants people to hear--that's him being a hack. Yes, he has strong political convictions, but I think a lot of the things he say don't quite fit into the "ideologue" label. For example his remarks on Keynes: lots of conservatives think Keynes is overrated, but it took Ferguson to slur Keynes on the grounds of his being a poof, something I suspect Ferguson said because he thought it was cute and clever and because he thought his audience would appreciate it. In that particular case, Ferguson was wrong on both counts (unless we have a pretty low threshold for cute and clever), which just demonstrates the challenges of being a hack--you have to continually calibrate to all your audiences. If Ferguson were a mere ideologue, all would be simpler.Andrew Gelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02715992780769751789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-39683123875632654112015-10-06T06:27:42.161-04:002015-10-06T06:27:42.161-04:00Just to be clear, my issue is not with Roberts'...Just to be clear, my issue is not with Roberts' failure to disclose or with the NYT's failure to investigate. I consider the conflict of interest here trivial. This is a right wing ideologue's review of a right wing ideologue's AUTHORIZED biography of Kissinger. I can't think of any personal relationship that would make the man fawn any harder.<br /><br />If the editor had said “it's a minor problem” or “it hardly ever comes up” or “we like to trust our reviewers,” I would be perfectly cool with it. All three are valid, reasonable arguments. <br /><br />But that's not what the editor said. She said she couldn't “realistically” do this. That's simply not true. It's a five minute process. She could do it for every review (or hand it off to an intern). I'm not saying that she should, but I am saying that, if she chooses not to, she should accurately describe it as a policy decision or a judgment call or just an oversight and not claim that it was out of her hands.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14705408455380402571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-72383310228128040912015-10-05T21:32:39.197-04:002015-10-05T21:32:39.197-04:00I bow to no one in my distaste for Niall Ferguson,...I bow to no one in my distaste for Niall Ferguson, but my guess on this one is that the difficulty is not in doing the google search but in thinking about doing the search in the first place.<br /><br />Consider a common scenario in life. You plan to meet some friends at your favorite restaurant at a specified time and date. It's a casual restaurant that never requires reservations. You get there and it's closed--they have a special function that night! Damn. If only you'd thought to call ahead. But you didn't think to call, so you didn't. Perhaps this is what happened here: the editors didn't think about conflict of interest. So the point is not that they need to do more thorough searches; rather, the question is whether such conflicts occur often enough to require such routine checking.Andrew Gelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02715992780769751789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6976144462093297473.post-46003282474282081542015-10-05T13:03:29.475-04:002015-10-05T13:03:29.475-04:00In this case, I must admit that the piece I find t...In this case, I must admit that the piece I find the most surprising is the reviewer not mentioning the link. The modern custom seems to be a work it into the piece as "an aside", possibly humorous, rather than to give a formal conflict of interest statement. <br /><br />I am curious why the reviewer in question did not do so on this occasion. In some ways it makes them more qualified to review, as there is always a trade-off in a reviewer between independence and familiarity. Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10760453165301871031noreply@blogger.com