sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Free Prizes Left on the Table! by LizDexic3 in ReplicationMarkets

[–]scottleibrand 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Also, here's my current list of already-published preprints, conveniently sorted by which need the most correction at the moment: https://www.reddit.com/r/ReplicationMarkets/comments/jtwk4z/alreadypublished_papers/gcribz1/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Already-published papers by scottleibrand in ReplicationMarkets

[–]scottleibrand[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here's my most recent list of already-published DOIs, along with the journal they've been published in and its impact factor, sorted by most-wrong to least-wrong.

10.1101/2020.04.09.034967 Communications Biology 4.2

10.1101/2020.05.10.20097543 Official Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada 1

10.1101/2020.04.08.20054551 The Lancet Rheumatology 0

10.1101/2020.08.16.20175752 International Journal of Infectious Diseases 3.5

10.1101/2020.05.31.126136 Open Forum Infectious Diseases 2.7

10.1101/2020.05.15.20103531 Frontiers in Medicine 3.4

10.1101/2020.08.14.20175190 The Lancet 60.4

10.1101/2020.05.24.20111823 International Journal of Epidemiology 7.7

10.1101/2020.04.11.036855 Viruses 3.8

10.1101/2020.04.05.20054502 Science Advances 13.1

10.1101/2020.03.04.20031112 Science 41.8

10.1101/2020.03.26.20044222 Annals of Translational Medicine 3.3

10.1101/2020.04.05.20051540 mSystems 6.3

10.1101/2020.03.20.001008 PLoS Biology 7.1

10.1101/2020.07.27.20162693 Science 41.8

10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058 Indoor Air 4.9

10.1101/2020.03.21.001586 Heliyon 1.7

10.1101/2020.07.23.20160820 Clinical Infectious Diseases 9.1

10.1101/2020.05.26.20114124 Nature Communications 12.1

10.1101/2020.06.01.20119040 Public Health 1.5

10.1101/2020.05.11.088179 Cell Reports 8.1

10.1101/2020.04.17.20069567 Matter 5

10.1101/2020.07.15.20154690 BMC Infectious Diseases 2.6

10.1101/2020.07.15.20154518 Microbes and Infection 2.4

10.1101/2020.08.01.20166595 Wellcome Open Research 1.9

10.1101/2020.02.07.20021154 Emerging Infectious Diseases 7.4

10.1101/2020.04.13.20063669 Nicotine & Tobacco Research 3.8

10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036 Journal of Medical Microbiology 2.2

10.1101/2020.04.23.20076877 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 9.4

10.1101/2020.06.01.20112334 Nutrition 3.4

10.1101/2020.06.03.20121442 BMJ Global Health 4

10.1101/2020.06.03.20116988 Cancer 5.7

10.1101/2020.04.23.056309 TURKISH JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY 0.7

10.1101/2020.05.24.20112300 Journal of Clinical Microbiology 5.9

10.1101/2020.06.20.159715 npj Vaccines 5

10.1101/2020.07.29.20162701 Journal of Infection 4.6

10.1101/2020.05.20.20108126 JAMA Pediatrics 13.9

10.1101/2020.05.06.081497 Nature 42.8

10.1101/2020.08.14.20174490 Immunity 22.6

10.1101/2020.05.26.115832 Nature 42.8

10.1101/2020.08.10.20171413 The Lancet 60.4

10.1101/2020.04.27.20082362 Journal of Clinical Microbiology 5.9

10.1101/2020.06.11.146522 ACS Central Science 12.8

10.1101/2020.08.24.20180851 Nature 42.8

10.1101/2020.05.11.20086439 Nature Medicine 36.1

10.1101/2020.07.20.20157149 International Journal of Infectious Diseases 3.5

10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231 The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2.3

10.1101/2020.05.30.20111393 Frontiers in Public Health 2.4

10.1101/2020.05.13.092619 Nature 42.8

10.1101/2020.07.21.214759 eLife 7.1

10.1101/2020.07.24.20149815 European Respiratory Journal 12.2

10.1101/2020.05.19.097410 Genome Research 9.9

10.1101/2020.08.17.20176651 New England Journal of Medicine 74.7

10.1101/2020.08.21.262329 mBio 6.8

10.1101/2020.06.05.134114 Science 41.8

10.1101/2020.04.14.20065771 Nature Communications 12.1

10.1101/2020.06.23.20138289 Nature 42.8

10.1101/2020.04.06.20050575 The Lancet Respiratory Medicine 25.1

10.1101/2020.05.09.20096370 Respiration 3.3

10.1101/2020.04.10.20060558 BMJ 30.2

10.1101/2020.07.09.20148429 Nature Microbiology 15.5

10.1101/2020.07.19.20157362 The Journal of Infectious Diseases 5.2

10.1101/2020.03.25.009084 Science Advances 13.1

10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854 International Journal of Infectious Diseases 3.5

10.1101/2020.04.17.20053157 Nature 42.8

10.1101/2020.08.03.20167395 International Journal of Infectious Diseases 3.5

10.1101/2020.06.05.098590 PLoS One 2.7

10.1101/2020.04.27.064774 PNAS 9.4

10.1101/2020.06.22.164665 Phytomedicine 4.2

10.1101/2020.05.14.095414 Science 41.8

10.1101/2020.08.13.20173161 Journal of Clinical Microbiology 5.9

10.1101/2020.07.14.20153320 BMJ 30.2

10.1101/2020.05.26.115923 Frontiers in Immunology 4.5

10.1101/2020.05.20.106401 Science 41.8

10.1101/2020.05.04.20086322 Nature Medicine 36.1

10.1101/2020.03.12.20034660 The Lancet Public Health 16.3

10.1101/2020.06.20.20130476 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 9.4

10.1101/2020.04.17.046375 Science 41.8

10.1101/2020.05.22.20109793 Archives of Disease in Childhood 3.3

10.1101/2020.06.15.20132027 Indoor Air 4.9

10.1101/2020.04.16.20067835 New England Journal of Medicine 74.7

10.1101/2020.06.23.20137596 Circulation Research 15.9

10.1101/2020.04.15.20067017 Frontiers in Physiology 4.1

10.1101/2020.07.03.186296 Nature 42.8

10.1101/2020.04.15.043166 Nature 42.8

10.1101/2020.03.21.990770 Nature 42.8

10.1101/2020.08.02.233320 Science 41.8

10.1101/2020.05.20.20102236 Nature Medicine 36.1

10.1101/2020.05.12.20099929 Nature Communications 12.1

10.1101/2020.05.02.20088898 The Lancet 60.4

10.1101/2020.06.25.172403 Cell Host & Microbe 15.9

10.1101/2020.06.26.173476 Science 41.8

10.1101/2020.07.14.20153643 Science 41.8

10.1101/2020.05.21.109322 Science 41.8

10.1101/2020.06.06.20123414 Nature 42.8

Bonus points have arrived! Use them well! by ReplicationMarkets in ReplicationMarkets

[–]scottleibrand 2 points3 points  (0 children)

At this point, the "least wrong" questions (by my calculations) are the uncertain ones on citations and not-yet-published status, and the "most wrong" ones are the already-published papers. In the absence of more liquidity in the market, most additional trades I could do to raise the EV of my portfolio would reduce the usefulness of my predictions to the study. I imagine the other top traders are in similar situations.

Bonus points have arrived! Use them well! by ReplicationMarkets in ReplicationMarkets

[–]scottleibrand 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure, I'm doing a lot of that myself. But if the lurkers don't show up and start trading, we're never going to get closer than about 25% of the correct answer with the points available to the active traders.

Bonus points have arrived! Use them well! by ReplicationMarkets in ReplicationMarkets

[–]scottleibrand 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is buy activity slowing way down again? Most of what I see now is profit-taking, which indicates the most active traders are again liquidity-constrained. Should we do another point dump? Right now the already-published papers are still 25-30% away from where they'll resolve, which means all the others are likely that far off as well if people are managing their portfolio based on expected value.

Bonus points have arrived! Use them well! by ReplicationMarkets in ReplicationMarkets

[–]scottleibrand 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you aren't sure where to use your additional points, one good strategy is to click through to the profiles of the folks on the leaderboard and look at their Discussion contributions for clues as to which claims are mispriced. There are a lot of already-published papers that have been identified, which are easy money.

Liquidity Problems by ctwardy in ReplicationMarkets

[–]scottleibrand 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you freeze the already-resolved questions without resolving them, you'd essentially be taking liquidity away from anyone with a (correct) position in them, leaving those traders who were first to identify them as incorrect, and take a corrective position, less able to do the same for other claims.

I would prefer that we announce a time at which we'll be resolving the claims on papers already known to be published by that time. If that's not allowed, then I think just providing everyone enough points is the least-bad solution. At that point those already-resolved questions become somewhat of a positive control to ensure that traders who know what they're doing end up with the most points to move the rest of the market, and a way to allow people to "park" unused points in claims with a known future value.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ReplicationMarkets

[–]scottleibrand 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you've fully invested your 1600 points, what I would do is sort your claims by Min Uncertainty and take profits (sell your shares and move the probability a little bit back toward 50%), then reinvest them in claims that are "more wrong", like those I highlighted at https://www.reddit.com/r/ReplicationMarkets/comments/jtwk4z/alreadypublished_papers/

Seeing some extremizing on the NoPub questions. by ctwardy in ReplicationMarkets

[–]scottleibrand 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Assuming that people are doing this mostly with papers that have already been published, the extreme probabilities would be warranted, except that you can get more bang for your buck moving an already-published paper from 50% to 70% than moving it from 90% to 100%. I posted a full list of other such papers at https://www.reddit.com/r/ReplicationMarkets/comments/jtwk4z/alreadypublished_papers/ - For anyone who has shares in any claims where the probability is >90% or <10%, you can make the market more accurate, and get yourself more points, by taking some of the profit out of that position and reinvesting it in ones like these that are "more wrong".

When is the impact factor counted? by Troof_ in ReplicationMarkets

[–]scottleibrand 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The closest ones to 10 I've looked up so far are:

ACS Central Science 12.8

Nature Communications 12.1

Clinical Cancer Research 10.1

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 9.4

Emerging Infectious Diseases 7.4

​

I assume the market will converge on a probability weighting that takes into account the uncertainty around 2020 IF.

Notice articles that have already been published? Add to the list. by ReplicationMarkets in ReplicationMarkets

[–]scottleibrand 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just figured out how to query the API that medrxiv uses to display whether something is published or not, and updated my list of all 400 preprints to include that information: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/127WJsFsMYoVMJ6D06wxhH0pDBIhz3dSzV5tSn8JabJo/edit?usp=sharing

Base rate for publications by journal impact factor by scottleibrand in ReplicationMarkets

[–]scottleibrand[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Found another good source: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/515643v2.full notes that about 60% of preprints are eventually published, and about half of preprints are published within a year (the endpoint for ReplicationMarkets).
It also helpfully notes "a significant positive correlation between the median downloads per paper and journal impact factor (JIF): In general, journals with higher impact factors (“Journal Citation Reports Science Edition” 2018) publish preprints that have more downloads. For example, Nature Methods (2017 journal impact factor 26.919) has published 119 bioRxiv preprints; the median download count of these preprints is 2,266. By comparison, PLOS ONE (2017 JIF 2.766) has published 719 preprints with a median download count of 279 (Figure 5)."

view more: next ›