So I arXived my brief research note on a generalization of the Savage-Dickey Density Ratio (SDDR) to general probability spaces (including those not admitting a Lebesgue reference measure) yesterday (so it’ll be out in today’s mailing later). But this morning I received the Editor’s decision: rejected without even sending to referees. The reasoning was thus:

“*The paper builds on the work of Marin and Robert and presents a generalized Savage-Dickey Ratio. The paper is well written and its arguments easy to follow.*

*However, its contribution is rather increments. I believe it is better suited for a journal focusing on ***short communications**.”

Which is all a bit confusing for me because the description of EJS at the top of its website is:

“*The Electronic Journal of Statistics (EJS) publishes research articles and ***short notes** on theoretical, computational and applied statistics.”

As for the slightly pejorative “rather increments”(sic) comment: fair enough I guess, though the Marin & Robert (2010) paper from EJS (which is why I submitted there) could have been described as incremental, and it’s my impression that a lot of good scientific papers are. Also, it’s my feeling that Bayesian model selection in non-Lebesgue density spaces (e.g. Dirichlet process priors, Gaussian process priors), though little studied to-date, is likely to become quite a hot topic in the next few years.

Oh well, at least it’s on the arXiv (in a couple of hours), and should make a quick read for anyone interested in Bayesian model selection: if you can read it before finishing your morning doughnut, then you can treat yourself to another! 🙂

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

Hardly any work is non-incremental.

In my experience it’s much harder to get things published in statistics journals compared to astronomy journals.

True, plus I think there is a certain degree to which stats editors act as ‘curators’, putting their own particular flavour to the publication list