From: John Lott <email@example.com>
Date: Mon May 5, 2003 6:02:24 PM US/Eastern
To: David Glenn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Chronicle article: Scholarly Debate Over Guns and Crime Rekindlesas States Debate Legalization
I was not all concerned about whether I had enough space, and as someone who writes some op-eds I do realize that space constraints can cause things to run together. My concern was only just over accuracy. I had only had the piece read to me over the telephone when I was on my trip and when I read it myself I noticed this point. I knew it was too late to change anything, but I just didn't want there to be any confusion.
On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 05:38 PM, David Glenn wrote:
Dear John Lott:
Thank you for your note. Yes, it would have been better for me to have
written something like, "Because the articles appeared in a law review,
neither the broad arguments about how to specify the statistical models
nor the narrower argument about coding errors were reviewed by
third-party scholars. . ." etc.
On the other hand, if your primary concern is that I didn't give enough
space and weight to your claim that the coding errors don't affect the
overall interpretation of the results, I respectfully disagree. We
devoted a full paragraph to your statement, "Whether one believes the
regressions in the Plassmann and Whitley piece or not. . ." etc.
John Lott wrote:
I reread your piece and I found an English mistake. I believe that you
combined two points into one and I don't think that it makes a lot of
sense. I said that the coding errors did not have a big effect on
interpretations of the results and that the Ayres and Donohue piece was
in a law review with student editors who were unable to evaluate the
different claims in the arguments (there were many claims in this
debate such as what was really shown by the hybrid model).
On Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 10:48 AM, email@example.com
Mr. Lott also points out that because the claim of coding
errors appears in a law review, it has not been subject to
review by third-party scholars, as would have been the case in
a peer-reviewed economics journal.
The Chronicle of Higher Education
1255 Twenty-Third Street NW
Washington, DC 20037