Thank you so much, Jason Radford, for sharing your analysis!
Lennart Guldbrandsson said:
I know I was surprised to read that we would be better off trying to recruit new editors than to focus on retention (very simplified).
I noticed that too and found it very surprising.
Jason, I read that section of your blog post carefully. This was confusing to me:
Existing Editor Retention: Currently, about 75% of editors retire every year or about 2.1% per month. In this simulation, we ask what happens if we were to reduce the retirement rate of existing female editors to 80%, 90%, or 100% while maintaining the existing retirement rate for male editors at 75%.
The reason it is confusing is because the accompanying
x-y
chart shows three time series, labelled 80% retention, 90% retention and 100% respectively, see below. Do you mean to say, "increase the retention rate" to 80%, 90% or 100% instead of "reduce the retirement rate"? 80%, 90% and 100% retirement rates aren't an improvement.
Could you humor me, and confirm that this was just a wording error, and not associated with anything in the underlying analysis?
~FeralOink (Ellie Kesselman)
