Lmao why would one do PhD in accounting. What is the purpose of the research, derive a method to make cash flow calculation faster?
Easy, to make more money producing lower quality research.
https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/jfe-list-of-reviewers
JFE Referees who didn't accept even a single paper and reviewed 20 or more papers.
Tarun Chordia - 61
David Larcker - 46
Harold Mulherin - 38
Jun Koo-Kang - 36
Joanna Wu - 34
Douglas Skinner - 32
Lauren Cohen - 32
Sunil Wahal - 30
Paul Irvine - 25
Sudheer Chava - 24
Jonathan Brogaard - 24
David Mayers - 24
Jeffry Netter - 24
Dong Lou - 23
Tor-Erik Bakke - 22
Yuhai Xuan - 21
David Musto - 21
Walter Torous - 20
Peter Wyscoki - 20
Christopher Polk - 20
Full list of harsh referees:
0 acceptance out of 15+ reviews,
1 acceptance out of 20+ reviews,
2 acceptances out of 50+ reviews):
Tarun Chordia
David Larcker
Harold Mulherin
Jun Koo-Kang
Joanna Wu
Douglas Skinner
Lauren Cohen
Sunil Wahal
Paul Irvine
Sudheer Chava
Jonathan Brogaard
David Mayers
Jeffry Netter
Dong Lou
Tor-Erik Bakke
Yuhai Xuan
David Musto
Walter Torous
Peter Wyscoki
Christopher Polk
Loughran, Timothy
Jegadeesh, Narasimhan
Seyhun, H. Nejat
Hadlock, Charles
Barinov, Alexander
Heitzman, Shane M.
Guay, Wayne R.
Kahle, Kathleen
Ready, Robert C.
Hertzel, Michael G
Albuquerque, Rui
Holderness, Clifford
Rouwenhorst, K. Geert
Knyazeva, Anzhela
Fich, Eliezer M.
Pan, Jun
Fahlenbrach, Rudiger
Campello, Murillo
McConnell, John J.
Dew-Becker, Ian
Garleanu, Nicolae
Bhagat, Sanjai
Chernov, Mikhail
Poulsen, Annette
Engelberg, Joseph E.
Purnanandam, Amiyatosh
Reed, Adam V.
Tate, Geoffrey A.
Bakke, Tor-Erik
Opp, Christian C.
Whaley, Robert
Johnson, Timothy C
So, Eric C.
Allayannis, George
Da, Zhi
Schaefer, Scott
Drechsler, Itamar
Gillan, Stuart L.
Kiku, Dana
Gustafson, Matthew
Nini, Gregory
Mann, William
Seasholes, Mark S.
What's the chance of someone getting 61 crappy papers in a row?
newsflash: it's common for very high rejections for crappy papers.
The overall acceptance rate is 2,670/24,009 = 11.12%. The odds that 61 random papers would all be rejects according to this overall rate is 0.8888^61, or 0.075% or 1 in 1,328. There are 1,941 reviewers listed so it's not so surprising there would be at least one with such an extreme observed rejection rate.
What's the chance of someone getting 61 crappy papers in a row?newsflash: it's common for very high rejections for crappy papers.
The overall acceptance rate is 2,670/24,009 = 11.12%. The odds that 61 random papers would all be rejects according to this overall rate is 0.8888^61, or 0.075% or 1 in 1,328. There are 1,941 reviewers listed so it's not so surprising there would be at least one with such an extreme observed rejection rate.
There aren't 1,328 reviewers that have gotten 61 papers. Brush up on stats.
What's the chance of someone getting 61 crappy papers in a row?newsflash: it's common for very high rejections for crappy papers.
The overall acceptance rate is 2,670/24,009 = 11.12%. The odds that 61 random papers would all be rejects according to this overall rate is 0.8888^61, or 0.075% or 1 in 1,328. There are 1,941 reviewers listed so it's not so surprising there would be at least one with such an extreme observed rejection rate.
Two small problems with your calculation. First, the 11% acceptance rate of submitted articles includes desk rejects. The papers sent to reviewers are after desk rejects, meaning the acceptance rate of these papers is much higher than 11.12%. Second, you are assuming random draws. However, senior faculty don't get random draws of the papers, we get better papers to review than the juniors. I have experienced this as both a reviewer and as an editor.
What's the chance of someone getting 61 crappy papers in a row?newsflash: it's common for very high rejections for crappy papers.
The overall acceptance rate is 2,670/24,009 = 11.12%. The odds that 61 random papers would all be rejects according to this overall rate is 0.8888^61, or 0.075% or 1 in 1,328. There are 1,941 reviewers listed so it's not so surprising there would be at least one with such an extreme observed rejection rate.
Two small problems with your calculation. First, the 11% acceptance rate of submitted articles includes desk rejects. The papers sent to reviewers are after desk rejects, meaning the acceptance rate of these papers is much higher than 11.12%. Second, you are assuming random draws. However, senior faculty don't get random draws of the papers, we get better papers to review than the juniors. I have experienced this as both a reviewer and as an editor.
The 11% is from the totals reported at the bottom of that paper, so it would already exclude desk rejects. I believe the actual acceptance rate at JFE is more like or 6 or 7%.
The second point should be demonstrable empirically with this data, which would be interesting, and if true, would make TC more of an outlier.
Wrong. Desk rejection at Jfe is about 50%. Acceptance rate of all papers is about 5%. Still. Any referee with a 1% rate is a terrible one
What's the chance of someone getting 61 crappy papers in a row?newsflash: it's common for very high rejections for crappy papers.
The overall acceptance rate is 2,670/24,009 = 11.12%. The odds that 61 random papers would all be rejects according to this overall rate is 0.8888^61, or 0.075% or 1 in 1,328. There are 1,941 reviewers listed so it's not so surprising there would be at least one with such an extreme observed rejection rate.
Two small problems with your calculation. First, the 11% acceptance rate of submitted articles includes desk rejects. The papers sent to reviewers are after desk rejects, meaning the acceptance rate of these papers is much higher than 11.12%. Second, you are assuming random draws. However, senior faculty don't get random draws of the papers, we get better papers to review than the juniors. I have experienced this as both a reviewer and as an editor.
This is so quiet.
Agreed, which is weird given how fast the market is actually going...I've heard of multiple schools that will be done with their "flyouts" by mid-January. These are schools that normally would have had flyouts throughout January and February. We should see some serious movement by the end of the month...
This is so quiet.Agreed, which is weird given how fast the market is actually going...I've heard of multiple schools that will be done with their "flyouts" by mid-January. These are schools that normally would have had flyouts throughout January and February. We should see some serious movement by the end of the month...
I hope so. The most competitive time in the market is right now. The beginning and end of market is a great time to snag a job. With states and higher education getting bailed out over the next few months, I predict lots of jobs will be posted in March/April.