3 ms·
It looks like they fit a (multinomial?) logistic regression. Unfortunately, the interpretation of the model coefficients is difficult because each coefficient i
by pacbard 9y ago
It looks like they fit a (multinomial?) logistic regression. Unfortunately, the interpretation of the model coefficients is difficult because each coefficient is a log likelihood - therefore on a weird metric.
I would suggest to look at the odds ratio column for a coefficient that is more interpretable. An odds ratio of 1 represent equal odds of being accepted. A coefficient greater than one represents better odds of acceptance (e.g., a paper from a university is 1.5 times as likely as a paper not from a university to be accepted or, said in another way, a paper for a university has is 50% more likely than a paper not from a university to be accepted).
Coefficients less than 1 have a similar but opposite interpretation. For example, women are 0.78 times as likely as men to be accepted (or 22% less likely).
I wish they had reported marginal probabilities of acceptance because odds ratios can be misleading when marginal probabilities are small or large (e.g., if group 1 has a marginal probability of acceptance of 1% and group 2 has 3%, their odds ratio will be 3 but the marginal difference is basically negligible).
- bo1024 9y agoThanks for the help. The odds ratios are easier to interpret, but the big question I still have is how this shows a (statistically significant) difference between double-blind and single-blind reviews....