[Re] Groups of diverse problem-solvers outperform groups of highest-ability problem-solvers - most of the time #61
Comments
|
Happy to take this over! 😊 |
|
@marieke-woensdregt has accepted to be one of the reviewers — awesome and thank you! |
|
Hi! Happy to help! |
|
@LukasWallrich do you have any ideas/suggestions for a 2nd reviewer? |
Unfortunately, I don't - this is my first foray into computational work, and I don't yet know many people in this space. If necessary, I can, of course, do some research ... but any suggestions would be based on Googling rather than actual judgements of whether someone would be suitable. |
|
Hi both, |
|
@marieke-woensdregt sounds great, if you can! |
|
@marieke-woensdregt no undue pressure, but any idea for an ETA for the review? 😊 |
|
@LukasWallrich I apologise for this taking so long. Have you had a chance to maybe think of any potential reviewers to help me out? I'm struggling to find anybody able to do this for us. 😌 |
|
Dear @LukasWallrich and @oliviaguest, I am so sorry for the radio silence. I was a bit overwhelmed with other work these past months, but will definitely get to this by the end of this week. My sincere apologies for the delay. I also thought of some other potential reviewers:
These are all people who mostly work on language and cultural evolution, because that happens to be my field, but they are also definitely interested in population-level processes more generally, and all do agent-based modelling and simulations using Python. Hope that helps! |
|
Thank you to both of you! I have also been very busy and thus not found the time to follow up ... so I am glad that this is moving again. @oliviaguest would you be able to invite these possible reviewers? I am meeting someone later this week who might have ideas, so I will try again. |
|
I'm sorry that I can't be of more use in finding reviewers. However, what I can do is volunteer to review #64 if helpful? I have some background in educational policy, so I at least understand the substance well. |
|
I'm finally sitting down for this now! |
|
@marieke-woensdregt fantastic! @LukasWallrich yes, I can invite them — of course. Please send me names if you have any handy. |
|
@marieke-woensdregt I hope you are well. Any update? I hope you did not run into a roadblock when you sat down for this back in April? |
|
Hi @LukasWallrich, |
|
@oliviaguest I finally got a few names for potential reviewers. I don't know any of them - they were suggested by Francesco Rigoli who convenes a network on computational political psychology. Would you want to invite them or should I reach out? For peer review, I thought it make sense if that comes from you but happy to follow your guidance (incidentally, there might also be suitable reviewers here for #64?) • dimitri ognibene: [email protected] |
|
Hi @LukasWallrich and @oliviaguest, I am close to finishing my review of this replication. I am just waiting to see if the simulation results come out the same if I re-run the simulations myself. I should be able to send you my review soon! By the way, how shall I share my review @oliviaguest? Should it be open, e.g. by attaching it as a file to a message in this GitHub thread? |
Plain text in this thread would be great. See examples here when you click on "review" http://rescience.github.io/read/ — hope that helps. 😊 |
|
Sorry you were tagged in an unclear way, @mmoutou. I had hoped for a list of names and not GitHub tags (because it causes this confusion). In the interests of transparency/clarity, these comments are part of an open review and visible to others. If you would like to decline/stop receiving notifications, please use the unsubscribe option. Apologies for the confusion. |
|
Yeah that was quite unclear - I didn't realise that even if I didn't log in to github, the contents of my email would be public. There really should be info about this visibility very prominent in the email copy that's sent. However I'm still confused - I presume all this means that @oliviaguest will let me know if I am invited as a reviewer. Presumably the review would include Comments to the Editor and Comments to the Authors, etc., so it wouldn't just be posted here??? |
|
@mmoutou if you want to you may delete/edit the email/comment above. It would be wonderful if you wanted to review. Do you have the time and feel up for it? To be clear, this is not a traditional journal. The review completely takes place here, on GitHub, in public. You may look at examples and instructions here: http://rescience.github.io/ Let me know if you have further questions, @mmoutou! 😌 |
|
@mmoutou - good to e-meet you and both to you and to @oliviaguest apologies for the confusion that I caused! I wanted to be helpful by pulling out the GH names - but clearly didn't think far enough. Sorry. I'd still appreciate it if you could contribute to the review process. |
|
@marieke-woensdregt let me know if you need help attaching what you have so far..? 😊 |
|
@thelogicalgrammar @marieke-woensdregt can you give some indication to the author if you are happy with the edits, please? 😊 |
|
Dear @LukasWallrich, Thanks for the detailed answer! I am happy with the edits, everything looks ready to me.
PSAgent was referred to as "PS" later in the code, but this seems to have been solved already. Best, |
|
Dear @LukasWallrich, Apologies for the late reply. Thank you for the final fixes. Those all look good! In sum, all my comments have been adequately addressed, and I consider this paper and replication ready for publication! Best wishes, |
|
Dear Theo, dear Marieke, Thank you very much for your positive feedback - I very much appreciated your contributions to this paper. @oliviaguest can you please let me know what's next? |
|
I need to reread your article, and check it's all making sense, has no typos, and can you do the same, please... And then we're good to go! 🌈 |
|
@oliviaguest I have now re-read the article, caught some typos and added the meta-data in as far as I have it (including the code DOI). The PDF is now here ... I will also update the link at the top. Please let me know if you catch anything else - and how I can get the article DOI and other remaining metadata (issue, volume etc). |
|
@oliviaguest Friendly nudge - can we possibly manage to get this done by the anniversary of my submission? |
|
@oliviaguest Is there anything more to do ? If you need help with actual publication, let me know. |
|
@LukasWallrich Ping me again by Friday if you don't get news from @oliviaguest |
|
Hey all, I'm so sorry. I've been on sick leave and still am. @rougier if it's faster and OK with you, maybe indeed you can do the final stages? If, yes, thank you. And thank you all for your patience! 🌈 |
|
Sure. What's need to be done? Just publication? |
|
Oh, fantastic. Proofing and then I suspect it's done. 😎 Thank you! |
|
@oliviaguest Sorry to hear that - hope you will get better soon! @rougier Thanks so much for taking this on! |
|
@LukasWallrich I've uploaded a sandbox version at https://sandbox.zenodo.org/record/1137949. Can you check everythng's ok ? Note that DOI is not final, it'll change when I upload on the real Zenodo server. |
|
Wonderful, thank you @rougier! Looks all good to me - the only thing is that citations and footnotes look exactly the same, though it is often clear from the context what the superscript refers to. If that is in line with your template, I'm ok with that ... if there is an easy fix, then that'd be good ... |
|
Do you mean your PDF is different when you compile? |
|
No, it's the same - I didn't notice it there & also wouldn't know what to do about it. |
|
I now looked at some recent articles and noticed that some use [1] etc rather than the superscript for references - which is the ReScience standard? If the square brackets, that'd resolve the footnote issue ... if so, would you happen to know how to change that in latex (np if not, Google will tell me eventually) |
|
I never really paid attention to footnotes in the template and I think it should be the latex default. Did you use latest template? |
|
Yes, I used the last template. I think the key question is about the references. Should they be [1] or 1. Recent submissions use both formats, e.g., #67 uses superscripts and #69 uses square brackets. If they are 1, then they clash with footnotes - e.g., in 10.5281/zenodo.6574651. My suggestion would be to use a combination, namely [1], for citations - in line with, e.g., Wikipedia - see my new PDF here. To get that, I needed to make a small edit addition to rescience.cls. Or what would be your preferred solution? |
|
Seems to be a good compromise. Can you update the cls in your repo (I'll update my fork) and possibly make PR for the template ? |
|
Yes - have submitted the PR and updated my cls - hope this will enable you to remake the PDF accordingly. Let me know if you come across any issues - thanks! |
|
Here is the new (sandbox) entry: https://sandbox.zenodo.org/record/1139997. If everyhthing's fine, I'll publish it and make a PR on your repo. |
|
Thanks - this looks good!
…On Mon, 26 Dec 2022, 13:36 Nicolas P. Rougier, ***@***.***> wrote:
Here is the new (sandbox) entry: https://sandbox.zenodo.org/record/1139997.
If everyhthing's fine, I'll publish it and make a PR on your repo.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#61 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOK6NGMN6ONIXARJT6263KDWPGGNRANCNFSM5JAE7ZHQ>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Entry is online at https://zenodo.org/record/7484072 ! It will appear on rescience website in a few minutes |
Thanks for your encouragement in ReScience/call-for-replication#6 - as always, this took longer than expected, but I now managed to complete the replications. I'm very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Original article: - two articles that built on each other:
Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385–16389. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403723101
Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Bramson, A., Holman, B., McGeehan, S., & Berger, W. J. (2019). Diversity, Ability, and Expertise in Epistemic Communities. Philosophy of Science, 86(1), 98–123. https://doi.org/10.1086/701070
PDF URL: https://github.com/LukasWallrich/diversity_abm_replication-manuscript/raw/main/article.pdf
Metadata URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LukasWallrich/diversity_abm_replication-manuscript/main/metadata.yaml
Code URL: https://github.com/LukasWallrich/diversity_abm_replication
Scientific domain: Social Psychology (could be called Cognitive Modelling?)
Programming language: Python
Suggested editor: @oliviaguest? (but this does not require specialist knowledge)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: