This is a really cool MLB visualisation done with d3.js and Crossfilter. It was also prototyped in R, which makes it even cooler. (via Rafa via Chris V.)
Harvard is encouraging their professors to only publish in open access journals and to resign from closed access journals. This is another major change and bodes well for the future of open science (again via Rafa - noticing a theme this week?).
This deserves a post all to itself, but Greece is prosecuting a statistician for analyzing data in a way that changed their deficit figure. I wonder what the folks at the International Year of Statistics think about that? (via Alex N.)
Be on the twitters at 10:30AM Tuesday and follow the hashtag #jhsph753 if you want to hear all the crazy stuff I tell my students when I'm running on no sleep.
This might be short. I have a couple of classes starting on Monday. The first is our Johns Hopkins Advanced Methods class. This is one of my favorite classes to teach, our Ph.D. students are pretty awesome and they always amaze me with what they can do. The other is my Coursera debut in Data Analysis. We are at about 88,000 enrolled. Tell your friends, maybe we can make it an even 100k! In related news, some California schools are experimenting with offering credit for online courses. (via Sherri R.)
Some interesting numbers on why there aren't as many "gunners" in the NBA - players who score a huge number of points. I love the talk about hustling, rotating team defense. I have always enjoyed watching good defense more than good offense. It might not be the most popular thing to watch, but seeing the Spurs rotate perfectly to cover the open man is a thing of athletic beauty. My Aggies aren't too bad at it either...(via Rafa).
A really interesting article suggesting that nonsense math can make arguments seem more convincing to non-technical audiences. This is tangentially related to a previous study which showed that more equations led to fewer citations in biology articles. Overall, my take home message is that we don't need less equations necessarily; we need to elevate statistical/quantitative literacy to the importance of reading literacy. (via David S.)
Brian Caffo headlines the WaPo article about massive online open courses. He is the driving force behind our department’s involvement in offering these massive courses. I think this sums it up: `“I can’t use another word than unbelievable,” Caffo said. Then he found some more: “Crazy . . . surreal . . . heartwarming.”’
A really interesting discussion of why “A Bet is a Tax on B.S.”. It nicely describes why intelligent betters must be disinterested in the outcome, otherwise they will end up losing money. The Nate Silver controversy just doesn’t seem to be going away, good news for his readership numbers, I bet. (via Rafa)
An interesting article on how scientists are not claiming global warming is the sole cause of the extreme weather events we are seeing, but that it does contribute to them being more extreme. The key quote: “We can’t say that steroids caused any one home run by Barry Bonds, but steroids sure helped him hit more and hit them farther. Now we have weather on steroids.” —Eric Pooley. (via Roger)
Here is another article that appears to misunderstand statistical prediction. This one is about the Italian scientists who were jailed for failing to predict an earthquake. No joke.
We talk a lot about how much the data revolution will change industries from social media to healthcare. But here is an important reality check. Patients are not showing an interest in accessing their health care data. I wonder if part of the reason is that we haven’t come up with the right ways to explain, understand, and utilize what is inherently stochastic and uncertain information.
The BMJ is now going to require all data from clinical trials published in their journal to be public. This is a brilliant, forward thinking move. I hope other journals will follow suit. (via Karen B.R.)
An interesting article about the impact of retractions on citation rates, suggesting that papers in fields close to those of the retracted paper may show negative impact on their citation rates. I haven’t looked it over carefully, but how they control for confounding seems incredibly important in this case. (via Alex N.).