Citations cannot be compared across fields. RR is an quantitative macro guy, SH is an applied theorist. Within their fields, SH’s GS record is at least as impressive as RR’s.
This is another example where publication outlets are a much better measure of quality than citations. And this clearly shows: SH has mostly published in noname journals, RR consistently in decent ones. Hence RR>SH, but you can’t see this from citations.
I never quite understand these arguments. Why give a bonus for fields like theory or applied theory? Why couldn't what we observe simply be the result of a field fixed effect that simply shows the relevance or irrelevance of a field?
Citations cannot be compared across fields. RR is an quantitative macro guy, SH is an applied theorist. Within their fields, SH’s GS record is at least as impressive as RR’s.
This is another example where publication outlets are a much better measure of quality than citations. And this clearly shows: SH has mostly published in noname journals, RR consistently in decent ones. Hence RR>SH, but you can’t see this from citations.
Your assumption is that science is "good" if it has much relevance, but this is not true. For example, you might need years of "boring" solid theory research to get results which can be used frequently later on. Then, the final paper is perhaps often cited, but the dozens of important papers before are not.
I never quite understand these arguments. Why give a bonus for fields like theory or applied theory? Why couldn't what we observe simply be the result of a field fixed effect that simply shows the relevance or irrelevance of a field?
I do not deny such effects. But how frequent are they? Can you point to careers where people have worked out fundamental contributions but where ultimately "robbed" of the big recognition, say, in the form of citations? Is SH's such a career?
Your assumption is that science is "good" if it has much relevance, but this is not true. For example, you might need years of "boring" solid theory research to get results which can be used frequently later on. Then, the final paper is perhaps often cited, but the dozens of important papers before are not.
I never quite understand these arguments. Why give a bonus for fields like theory or applied theory? Why couldn't what we observe simply be the result of a field fixed effect that simply shows the relevance or irrelevance of a field?
The classical example is the Eicker-Huber-White HAC estimator.
I do not deny such effects. But how frequent are they? Can you point to careers where people have worked out fundamental contributions but where ultimately "robbed" of the big recognition, say, in the form of citations? Is SH's such a career?
Your assumption is that science is "good" if it has much relevance, but this is not true. For example, you might need years of "boring" solid theory research to get results which can be used frequently later on. Then, the final paper is perhaps often cited, but the dozens of important papers before are not.
I never quite understand these arguments. Why give a bonus for fields like theory or applied theory? Why couldn't what we observe simply be the result of a field fixed effect that simply shows the relevance or irrelevance of a field?
You guys all realized that noone except academic Econs (which is not even all Profs...) cares about journal comparisons.
RRs try to devalue SH via referring to the journals that are useless.
He did a great job via subjective criticism which destroys SH totally. The academic stuff alone would have backfired.
Get out of your basements guys. No one cares about past publications except your tenure letter writer...
https://amp.tagesspiegel.de/politik/stefan-homburg-wie-der-wirtschaftsprofessor-die-corona-kritiker-unterstuetzt/25866032.html#click=https://t.co/JRgOSYs480
Nachdem seine Thesen zu Covid-19 dort zu hitzigen Diskussionen geführt hatten, schickte Homburg über den Verteiler eine Mail, in der er einen anderen Teilnehmer der Liste in die Nähe von Medikamentenmissbrauch rückte und Spott über dessen wissenschaftliche Karriere andeutete. In der Folge wollten einige Ökonomen die Liste verlassen; Carl Christian von Weizsäcker, Initiator des Verteilers, belegte die Liste mit einem Moratorium, um den Zerfall der Gruppe zu verhindern. Einem anderen Kollegen, der Fragen zu Homburgs Corona-Thesen hatte, drohte Homburg mit juristischen Schritten.I am on that Weizsacker list and checked my mails. RR himself posted about his alleged medical abuse. Homburg did not. Will likely sue.
RR about SH?
Disappointing!