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?
Thank you,
~FeralOink (Ellie Kesselman)