A blog by Rob J Hyndman 

Twitter Gplus RSS

Posts Tagged ‘journals’:

Publishing an R package in the Journal of Statistical Software

Published on 24 April 2014

I’ve been an edi­tor of JSS for the last few years, and as a result I tend to get email from peo­ple ask­ing me about pub­lish­ing papers describ­ing R pack­ages in JSS. So for all those won­der­ing, here are some gen­eral comments.

4 Comments  comments 

Probabilistic forecasting by Gneiting and Katzfuss (2014)

Published on 14 March 2014

The IJF is intro­duc­ing occa­sional review papers on areas of fore­cast­ing. We did a whole issue in 2006 review­ing 25 years of research since the Inter­na­tional Insti­tute of Fore­cast­ers was estab­lished. Since then, there has been a lot of new work in appli­ca­tion areas such as call cen­ter fore­cast­ing and elec­tric­ity price fore­cast­ing. In addi­tion, there are areas we did not cover in 2006 includ­ing new prod­uct fore­cast­ing and fore­cast­ing in finance. There have also been method­olog­i­cal and the­o­ret­i­cal devel­op­ments over the last eight years. Con­se­quently, I’ve started invit­ing emi­nent researchers to write sur­vey papers for the jour­nal. One obvi­ous choice was Tilmann Gneit­ing, who has pro­duced a large body of excel­lent work on prob­a­bilis­tic fore­cast­ing in the last few years. The the­ory of fore­cast­ing was badly in need of devel­op­ment, and Tilmann and his coau­thors have made sev­eral great con­tri­bu­tions in this area. How­ever, when I asked him to write a review he explained that another jour­nal had got in before me, and that the review was already writ­ten. It appeared in the very first vol­ume of the new jour­nal Annual Review of Sta­tis­tics and its Appli­ca­tion: Gneit­ing and Katz­fuss (2014) Prob­a­bilis­tic Fore­cast­ing, pp.125–151. Hav­ing now read it, I’m both grate­ful for this more acces­si­ble


1 Comment  comments 

IJF news

Published on 7 March 2014

This is a short piece I wrote for the next issue of the Ora­cle newslet­ter pro­duced by the Inter­na­tional Insti­tute of Forecasters.

No Comments  comments 

How to get your paper rejected quickly

Published on 25 November 2013

I sent this rejec­tion let­ter this morn­ing about a paper sub­mit­ted to the Inter­na­tional Jour­nal of Fore­cast­ing. Dear XXXXX. I am writ­ing to you regard­ing man­u­script ????? enti­tled “xxxxxxxxxxxx” which you sub­mit­ted to the Inter­na­tional Jour­nal of Fore­cast­ing. It so hap­pens that I am aware that this paper was pre­vi­ously reviewed for the YYYYYYY jour­nal. It seems that you have not both­ered to make any of the changes rec­om­mended by the review­ers of your sub­mis­sion to YYYYYYY. Just sub­mit­ting the same paper to another jour­nal is extremely poor prac­tice, and I am dis­ap­pointed that you have taken this path. Review­ers spend a great deal of time pro­vid­ing com­ments, and it is dis­re­spect­ful to ignore them. I don’t expect you to do every­thing they say, but I would expect some of their com­ments to be help­ful. I am unwill­ing to con­sider the paper fur­ther for the Inter­na­tional Jour­nal of Fore­cast­ing. Read the pre­vi­ous reviews to know why. And before you sub­mit the paper to a new jour­nal, take the time to con­sider the reviews you have already been given. Sin­cerely, Rob Hyn­d­man (Editor-​​​​in-​​​​Chief, Inter­na­tional Jour­nal of Fore­cast­ing) I have writ­ten on this issue before. The peer-​​​​review sys­tem requires peo­ple to donate con­sid­er­able amounts of time to writ­ing reviews. In


11 Comments  comments 

Probabilistic Energy Forecasting

Published on 14 October 2013

The Inter­na­tional Jour­nal of Fore­cast­ing is call­ing for papers on prob­a­bilis­tic energy fore­cast­ing. Here are the details (taken from Tao Hong’s blog).

No Comments  comments 

IJF quality indicators

Published on 17 May 2013

I often receive email ask­ing about IJF qual­ity indi­ca­tors. Here is one I received today. Dear Pro­fes­sor Hyn­d­man, I recently had a paper pub­lished in IJF enti­tled, “xxxxxxxxxxxx”. I am very pleased with the pub­li­ca­tion and con­sider IJF to be an excel­lent out­let for my work in time-​​​​series econo­met­rics. I have an unusual request, but I hope you will con­sider respond­ing. My research is judged by non-​​​​economists and IJF is not on their list of “qual­ity” jour­nals. It makes a sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence in my research rat­ing and pay. Would you mind send­ing some objec­tive infor­ma­tion re the qual­ity of IJF that I can pass along to the com­mit­tee? And here is part of my reply: The IJF is ranked A in Aus­tralia (we have four lev­els — A*, A, B and C).† The IJF 2011 2-​​​​year impact fac­tor is 1.485. In 2010 it was 1.863. The five year impact fac­tor is 2.450. Com­pare this to the Jour­nal of Busi­ness and Eco­nomic Sta­tis­tics which has a 2-​​​​year impact fac­tor of 1.693, or Com­pu­ta­tional Sta­tis­tics & Data Analy­sis with 1.089. We are ranked 40 out of 305 eco­nom­ics jour­nals based on our 2-​​​​year impact fac­tor. We receive about 400 sub­mis­sions annu­ally, and pub­lish about 70 per year. But that includes invited papers. Of the


No Comments  comments 

Establishing priority

Published on 6 May 2013

The nature of research is that other peo­ple are prob­a­bly work­ing on sim­i­lar ideas to you, and it is pos­si­ble that some­one will beat you to pub­lish­ing them.

No Comments  comments 

Blogs about research

Published on 9 August 2012

If you find this blog help­ful (or even if you don’t but you’re inter­ested in blogs on research issues and tools), there are a few other blogs about doing research that you might find use­ful. Here are a few that I read. Pat­ter — Pat Thom­son. The The­sis Whis­perer — Inger Mew­burn. The Research Whis­perer – sev­eral RMIT researchers. the (research) supervisor’s friend — Geof Hill. My Research Rants – Jordi Cabot. The Three Month The­sis – James Hay­ton. prof­se­ri­ous – Anthony Finkel­stein. Aca­d­e­mic Life — Mar­i­aluisa Aliotta. Help for New Pro­fes­sors — Faye Hicks. The Art of Sci­en­tific Writ­ing – Faye Hicks. Explo­rations of style– Rachael Cay­ley. shar­manedit — Anna Shar­man. Grad­Hacker – writ­ers from sev­eral uni­ver­si­ties. PhD Life – War­wick Uni stu­dents. PhD Comics — essen­tial read­ing for every PhD stu­dent, and good ther­apy. I’ve cre­ated a bun­dle so you can sub­scribe to all of these in one go. Of course, there are lots of sta­tis­tics blogs as well, and blogs about other research dis­ci­plines. The ones above are those that con­cen­trate on generic research issues.

3 Comments  comments 

Read the literature

Published on 3 August 2012

I’ve just fin­ished another reviewer report for a jour­nal, and yet again I’ve had to make com­ments about read­ing the lit­er­a­ture. It’s not dif­fi­cult. Before you write a paper, read what other peo­ple have done. A sim­ple search on Google scholar will usu­ally do the trick. And before you sub­mit a paper, check again that you haven’t missed any­thing impor­tant. The paper I reviewed today did not cite a sin­gle ref­er­ence from either of the two most active research groups in the area in the last ten years. Any search on the topic would have turned up about a dozen papers from these two groups alone. I don’t mind if papers miss a ref­er­ence or two, espe­cially if they have been pub­lished in an obscure out­let. But I will rec­om­mend a straight reject if a paper hasn’t cited any of the most impor­tant papers from the last five years. Part of a researcher’s task is to engage with what has already been done, and show how any new ideas dif­fer from or extend on pre­vi­ous work.

No Comments  comments 

Put your pre-​​prints online

Published on 2 August 2012

I have argued pre­vi­ously that research papers should be posted online at the same time as they are sub­mit­ted to a jour­nal. Some­times peo­ple claim that jour­nals don’t allow it, which is non­sense. Almost every jour­nal allows it, and many also allow the pub­lished ver­sion of a paper to appear on your per­sonal web­site. Today I dis­cov­ered a new tool (thanks to the IMU newslet­ter) which makes it easy to check a journal’s pol­icy on this. Check out SHERPA/​​RoMEO. It’s a very use­ful tool, but who­ever thought SHERPA/​​RoMEO was a good name needs therapy.

No Comments  comments