search

ReScience / submissions

ReScience C submissions
28 stars 7 forks source link

[Re] Groups of diverse problem-solvers outperform groups of highest-ability problem-solvers - most of the time #61

Closed LukasWallrich closed 1 year ago

LukasWallrich commented 3 years ago

Thanks for your encouragement in ReScience/call-for-replication#6 - as always, this took longer than expected, but I now managed to complete the replications. I'm very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Original article: - two articles that built on each other: Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385–16389. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403723101 Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Bramson, A., Holman, B., McGeehan, S., & Berger, W. J. (2019). Diversity, Ability, and Expertise in Epistemic Communities. Philosophy of Science, 86(1), 98–123. https://doi.org/10.1086/701070

PDF URL: https://github.com/LukasWallrich/diversity_abm_replication-manuscript/raw/main/article.pdf Metadata URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LukasWallrich/diversity_abm_replication-manuscript/main/metadata.yaml Code URL: https://github.com/LukasWallrich/diversity_abm_replication

Scientific domain: Social Psychology (could be called Cognitive Modelling?) Programming language: Python Suggested editor: @oliviaguest? (but this does not require specialist knowledge)

rougier commented 2 years ago

@LukasWallrich Ping me again by Friday if you don't get news from @oliviaguest

oliviaguest commented 2 years ago

Hey all, I'm so sorry. I've been on sick leave and still am. @rougier if it's faster and OK with you, maybe indeed you can do the final stages? If, yes, thank you. And thank you all for your patience! 🌈

rougier commented 2 years ago

Sure. What's need to be done? Just publication?

oliviaguest commented 2 years ago

Oh, fantastic. Proofing and then I suspect it's done. 😎 Thank you!

LukasWallrich commented 2 years ago

@oliviaguest Sorry to hear that - hope you will get better soon!

@rougier Thanks so much for taking this on!

rougier commented 1 year ago

@LukasWallrich I've uploaded a sandbox version at https://sandbox.zenodo.org/record/1137949. Can you check everythng's ok ? Note that DOI is not final, it'll change when I upload on the real Zenodo server.

LukasWallrich commented 1 year ago

Wonderful, thank you @rougier! Looks all good to me - the only thing is that citations and footnotes look exactly the same, though it is often clear from the context what the superscript refers to. If that is in line with your template, I'm ok with that ... if there is an easy fix, then that'd be good ...

rougier commented 1 year ago

Do you mean your PDF is different when you compile?

LukasWallrich commented 1 year ago

No, it's the same - I didn't notice it there & also wouldn't know what to do about it.

LukasWallrich commented 1 year ago

I now looked at some recent articles and noticed that some use [1] etc rather than the superscript for references - which is the ReScience standard? If the square brackets, that'd resolve the footnote issue ... if so, would you happen to know how to change that in latex (np if not, Google will tell me eventually)

rougier commented 1 year ago

I never really paid attention to footnotes in the template and I think it should be the latex default. Did you use latest template?

LukasWallrich commented 1 year ago

Yes, I used the last template. I think the key question is about the references. Should they be [1] or 1. Recent submissions use both formats, e.g., #67 uses superscripts and #69 uses square brackets. If they are 1, then they clash with footnotes - e.g., in 10.5281/zenodo.6574651.

My suggestion would be to use a combination, namely [1], for citations - in line with, e.g., Wikipedia - see my new PDF here. To get that, I needed to make a small edit addition to rescience.cls. Or what would be your preferred solution?

rougier commented 1 year ago

Seems to be a good compromise. Can you update the cls in your repo (I'll update my fork) and possibly make PR for the template ?

LukasWallrich commented 1 year ago

Yes - have submitted the PR and updated my cls - hope this will enable you to remake the PDF accordingly. Let me know if you come across any issues - thanks!

rougier commented 1 year ago

Here is the new (sandbox) entry: https://sandbox.zenodo.org/record/1139997. If everyhthing's fine, I'll publish it and make a PR on your repo.

LukasWallrich commented 1 year ago

Thanks - this looks good!

On Mon, 26 Dec 2022, 13:36 Nicolas P. Rougier, @.***> wrote:

Here is the new (sandbox) entry: https://sandbox.zenodo.org/record/1139997. If everyhthing's fine, I'll publish it and make a PR on your repo.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ReScience/submissions/issues/61#issuecomment-1365140738, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOK6NGMN6ONIXARJT6263KDWPGGNRANCNFSM5JAE7ZHQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

rougier commented 1 year ago

Entry is online at https://zenodo.org/record/7484072 ! It will appear on rescience website in a few minutes

rougier commented 1 year ago

Here: https://rescience.github.io/bibliography/Wallrich_2022.html