In this episode of Yall Don't Read, I'm pushing for a norm where if you say 'don't believe it' 'this won't hold up' 'endogeneity' 'OVB' 'misspecified' you should to explain your theory of a confounder, why X is endogenous to Y, why a LATE ≠ ATE, etc Critiques are theories too
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @JakeMGrumbach
Best lesson I learned in Nick Valentino's research design seminar was on how to criticize well. Ppl would raise criticisms of a paper & Nick would ask, "And what does that do for the conclusions the scholar reaches?" It's now a q I try to consider before levying my own objections
3 replies 4 retweets 52 likes -
Replying to @hakeemjefferson @JakeMGrumbach
from my peer review checklist - many are of this variety …https://thepoliticalmethodologist.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/tpm_v23_n1.pdf …pic.twitter.com/8znXXKnMJB
3 replies 26 retweets 113 likes
since people seem to like the excerpt above, here's my whole peer review checklist - send it to your neighborhood journal editor! teach it to your grad students! leave copies scattered about academic conference venues! …https://thepoliticalmethodologist.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/tpm_v23_n1.pdf …pic.twitter.com/CZmDJZzl5w
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.