con’founding, adj.
That which confounds; destroying, confusing, perplexing, amazing, etc.: see the verb.October 2019 M T W T F S S « Feb 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Archives
Tags
amusing Big Society BMJ breastfeeding change charities cohort conference data Davies Law definitions evidence funding giving Government graphics Guardian Harvard hazard history housing ignorance inequality longitudinal mutual Nordic NY Times Open Access paradata peer review PhD political activity politics participation population projection qualitative R scare social class SPA therapy third sector time volunteering welfareBlogroll
- A blog for civic renewal
- Andrew McCulloch's social science blog
- David Kane at NCVO
- Inequalities blog
- Junk Charts
- Longview
- Mary Joyce's Meta-Activism blog
- Politics Upsidedown
- social science space
- Social Science Statistics Blog
- Statistical modelling, causal inference and social science
- Voluntary Action History Society
Tag Archives: peer review
Peer reviewed article ‘wrong’ shock
Dave Johns at Slate has written an interesting piece on self-publication and peer review, using a recent study about ‘social contagion’ as a peg. I wrote a post back in March about some of the pitfalls of peer review. In … Continue reading
Reviewing peer review
Having never thought about peer review in much detail, I came across two independent articles on the subject today. The first came courtesy of my friend Gill Norman who used it as light lunchtime reading before posting it on Facebook to … Continue reading