11

Background

I read about StatProb.com from a comment on Andrew Gelman's Blog.

According to the website, StatProb is:

StatProb: The Encyclopedia Sponsored by Statistics and Probability Societies combines the advantages of traditional wikis (rapid and up-to-date publication, user-generated development, hyperlinking, and a saved history) with traditional publishing (quality assurance, review, credit to authors, and a structured information display). All contributions have been approved by an editorial board determined by leading statistical societies; the editorial board members are listed on the About page.

I am not a statistician, but I use statistics, and this site appears to offer an opportunity me to publish material that while potentially useful to others, would likely go unpublished unless I were to include it as an appendix or post it on a website. The option is appealing because the review process would boost my own confidence in the methods that I use and give it some credibility in the public sphere.

Despite the support of major statistics and probability societies, the site has not taken off. Indeed, one blogger asked 'R.I.P. StatProb?' and the frequency of contributions has been declining with time.

Question:

Is it worth the effort to publish through StatProb.com?

Update:

As of today (2012-02-01), the most recent contribution was 2011-05-04; the most recent edit 2011-06. So it is looking less appealing today than when the question was originally asked.

Community
  • 1
Abe
  • 3,561
  • 7
  • 27
  • 45
  • 1
    If you exclude the editorial board, the citation you provide could be used for description of stats.SE. – mpiktas Apr 26 '11 at 20:24
  • 2
    @mpiktas I definitely appreciate the value of this site, but the editorial board has the potential to give the articles a more widely accepted currency of validity (e.g. C.V. value, pardon the pun) than the posts here. Furthermore, the format is fundamentally different, and the quality of answers on this site vary widely. – Abe Apr 26 '11 at 20:38
  • Statistical societies endorsed it; tenure committees, however... It seems to me that they only partly solved the problem of getting academics to contribute to sites like this (that is, editorial control and conspicuous attribution). – JMS Apr 26 '11 at 20:41
  • Also, the board listed on the site doesn't seem to be accurate; in the blog post you cite Christian Robert indicates that he, Nando de Freitas, and George Casella all resigned -- last year -- but are still on the StatProb list! – JMS Apr 26 '11 at 20:43

2 Answers2

8

As long as the sponsors of the site are committed to keeping the site running, it would be premature to declare it 'dead.' It is not out of the question that StatProb.com may experience a revival in the future. In judging the longevity of a resource like StatProb.com, the short-term trends are irrelevant. Instead, the right questions to ask are:

  • Is the principle behind a site like StatProb.com a sound one? Is the idea of a free access peer-reviewed encyclopedia an idea that will grow in relevance over time, or diminish?
  • If the answer to the first question is "Yes", then is it likely that an alternative to the site will arise?

I think the answer to the first question is Yes. The field of statistics is rapidly growing and the demand for online statistical answers is growing, as evidenced by this site (stats.SE). The value of online encyclopedias has been proven by the success of Wikipedia. Yet because Wikipedia is open to everyone, peer-reviewed alternatives to Wikipedia will eventually be needed.

As a site like StatProb.com gains more articles, it will gain more users, and as it gains more users, it will increase its public profile. As it increases its public profile, more researchers will be interesting in contributing to the site. That StatProb.com is off to a slow start gives no indication of where it may one day end up.

I think the answer to the second question is No, because Springer.com has taken the lead in the online academic publishing world and it seems unlikely that it will give up that lead. Any prospective competitor to StatProb.com will need a strong advantage to compensate for the brand-name recognition that Springer possesses.

I checked the site, and recently (5/11) a new article has appeared on 'Strong Mixing Conditions.' As long as the site has the name of Springer attached to it, it will have some credibility in the academic world (whether it deserves it or not!) and a smart researcher can take advantage of this credibility. I imagine it would be a useful place to write background information for you or a colleague to cite in your own papers. I will keep the site StatProb in mind as a potential resource to that end, and I upvoted this question for making me aware of the site as a potential resource for my own academic career.

charles.y.zheng
  • 7,346
  • 2
  • 28
  • 32
2

Maybe this question is now answered by the fate of the site. The site does not exist, and its content have winded up at The Encyclopedia of Mathematics.

kjetil b halvorsen
  • 63,378
  • 26
  • 142
  • 467