Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

["Irvine, Mahri" <>]

Dear All,

You may be interested in checking out a Huffington Post story about the Swartout et. al. and Hopper/Lisak/Tracy articles and critiques.

Here is an update from Jim Hopper:

We have corrected a mistake in our original critique, where we drew the wrong conclusion about the time that elapsed from the paper's submission to the journal to its acceptance for publication. In the published article it says, "The analyses presented here were conducted from February 16, 2015 through February 20, 2015," and "Accepted for Publication: March 12, 2015." In the absence of the usual published information about when the article was first submitted and when revisions were received, we incorrectly interpreted those passages as meaning that the article was first submitted after February 20th, when it was a final revision that was submitted then. We regret the error.

The revised critique and a short power point are attached, in the event that some of you might find them helpful or interesting.

Sincerely,

Mahri

 

Mahri Irvine, PhD

IU Statewide Sexual Assault Education and Prevention Specialist

Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis

Walker Plaza 220

719 Indiana Avenue

Indianapolis, IN 46202

317-274-2501 (office)

317-278-0948 (fax)

 

Heard about new research claims about serial rapists? Check out an extremely important interpretation of these claims!

 

From: Jim Hopper [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 9:38 AM
To: Irvine, Mahri <>
Subject: revised critique

 

Hi Mahri,

 

I'm not sure if you saw the Huffington Post story. It's pretty pathetic and biased, but it did generate publicity and has led many more people to read the PubPeer post, our letter to the JAMA Pediatrics editor, etc.

 

One thing that came out of the Huffington Post story: Apparently I misinterpreted two passages in the published paper as indicating that the paper was first submitted around February 23rd.

 

I've already updated the PubPeer post to acknowledge the error and posted a revised version of that 3-part critique document that says nothing about time from submission to acceptance, or anything about the journal and peer review process, for that matter. (Which hopefully will decrease the defensiveness of the journal's editors, but it may be too late for that.)

 

I'd like to correct that part of the critique for the people who have only received it only from you, which is a lot of people it appears.

 

I'm sorry to inconvenience you, but here's what I'm proposing:

 

You send another message to the same email lists, with the revised critique (attached) and a brief explanation written by me: 

 

We have corrected a mistake in our original critique, where we drew the wrong conclusion about the time that elapsed from the paper's submission to the journal to its acceptance for publication. In the published article it says, "The analyses presented here were conducted from February 16, 2015 through February 20, 2015," and "Accepted for Publication: March 12, 2015." In the absence of the usual published information about when the article was first submitted and when revisions were received, we incorrectly interpreted those passages as meaning that the article was first submitted after February 20th, when it was a final revision that was submitted then. We regret the error.

 

Does that sound OK to you? If you're willing to do this, would you mind running the message by me first?

 

Finally, I created another very brief self-explanatory PPT presentation to go with the rest of the materials on the Swartout paper. Let me know what you think of it, and feel free to share that as well (or not).

 

Again, I'm really sorry for the inconvenience and to impose on you this way,

 

Jim

Attachment: Swartout_Critique_Revised.pdf
Description: Swartout_Critique_Revised.pdf

Attachment: Serial_Rape_The_Simple_Math.pdf
Description: Serial_Rape_The_Simple_Math.pdf