Rejoinder to Paul J. Griffiths’ Response

Rejoinder: Response to Sobel*

Sobel claims to disagree with many of the points made in my paper. He also claims that much if not all of what I say is already in the statistical treatment effect literature. He treats my Section 4 as a literature review rather than an illustration of the basic principles made in Sections 1–3 of the paper, as I intended it to be. In joint work with Edward Vytlacil, I present a comprehensive li...

A Rejoinder to Shelia Dow and Paul Downward

In Memoriam: Paul J. Lioy

Exposure science has lost one of its founders and intellectual champions. Paul J. Lioy passed away unexpectedly on 8 July 2015 at the age of 68. The world has been left a far better place thanks to Lioy’s vision and creativity, enormous scientific contributions, and the many people that he shaped and influenced through teaching, mentoring, and friendships. Lioy’s vision and creativity took on m...

The Role of the Reviewer and Other Ethical/logical Considerations: a Rejoinder to Paul Harper

Paul Harper's fall 1984 JOSTCA response to "The Daily Oklahoman and Persuasion in the Early 1980 Presidential Campaign" has two fundamental problems. First, it raises some ethical questions about the role of the reviewer. Second, his overall logic is considerably weakened by recurring "straw man" arguments.

Rejoinder to 'The myth of concordance': a response to Armstrong.

Nutzungsbedingungen: Dieser Text wird unter dem "PEER Licence Agreement zur Verfügung" gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zum PEER-Projekt finden Sie hier: http://www.peerproject.eu Gewährt wird ein nicht exklusives, nicht übertragbares, persönliches und beschränktes Recht auf Nutzung dieses Dokuments. Dieses Dokument ist ausschließlich für den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen Gebrauch bestimmt. Auf s...