What is wrong with having to share the 'fruits' of your joint(!) piece of work weighted by 1/(1 + n)? I guess n=3 in your case?
It's always bad for the guy that did most of the work. It favors the lazy guys who are on the paper for reasons of power, hierarchy or data access.
did not read through the comment, but it seems unlikely that the absucre team of authors around SH has something serious to say on the profound analysis of the Gottingen epidemiologists that they refer to. Don't think SH has heard of MCMC and Bayesian model comparisons
did not read through the comment, but it seems unlikely that the absucre team of authors around SH has something serious to say on the profound analysis of the Gottingen epidemiologists that they refer to. Don't think SH has heard of MCMC and Bayesian model comparisons
The fact that you do not read the comment reveals that you have no clue on what you are talking about.
And you are having a hard time with prepositions. Passt ja ganz gut zur SH-Klientel. Küsschen!
did not read through the comment, but it seems unlikely that the absucre team of authors around SH has something serious to say on the profound analysis of the Gottingen epidemiologists that they refer to. Don't think SH has heard of MCMC and Bayesian model comparisonsThe fact that you do not read the comment reveals that you have no clue on what you are talking about.
How serious is the Handelsblatt ranking? I am an econometrician and it is very strange that Annals of Statistics is not listed there. The reason is that AoS is not on the EconLit list. But it should be clear that this journal is important for economists. It is among the best statistics journals and there are many lower statistics journals (which aren't more related to economics) in the list.The HB ranking is decent enough to give you a good idea about the general research output and tracetory of researchers. However, you are right in that some in- and exclusions of good journals are strange, especially given that there are literally hundreds of toilet journals included (everything from 300 downwards). I am more concerned about the penalty for multiple authored articles, though. Having, say, an AER with 3 more authors will not do much for your ranking.
What is wrong with having to share the 'fruits' of your joint(!) piece of work weighted by 1/(1 + n)? I guess n=3 in your case?
Yeah, but this not reality. Suppose you have a paper with someone from IAB, and the IAB researcher is on the paper because of data access. Should you really weigh by 1/2 or 1/3? Similarly if you are decent enough to let your data RA be coauthors then you are penalized. Look at the thank you notes of any top 5 and you know how big data teams are nowadays. You might like or not, the future and present are big research labs a la Chetty.
The usual thing in the US is to weigh 1/sqrt(n). I would very much prefer for HB to adopt this option.
Yeah, because you are not able to do research without coauthors. And you like to travel, go to conferences (beach in reality) and call that networking.
How serious is the Handelsblatt ranking? I am an econometrician and it is very strange that Annals of Statistics is not listed there. The reason is that AoS is not on the EconLit list. But it should be clear that this journal is important for economists. It is among the best statistics journals and there are many lower statistics journals (which aren't more related to economics) in the list.
The HB ranking is decent enough to give you a good idea about the general research output and tracetory of researchers. However, you are right in that some in- and exclusions of good journals are strange, especially given that there are literally hundreds of toilet journals included (everything from 300 downwards). I am more concerned about the penalty for multiple authored articles, though. Having, say, an AER with 3 more authors will not do much for your ranking.
What is wrong with having to share the 'fruits' of your joint(!) piece of work weighted by 1/(1 + n)? I guess n=3 in your case?
Yeah, but this not reality. Suppose you have a paper with someone from IAB, and the IAB researcher is on the paper because of data access. Should you really weigh by 1/2 or 1/3? Similarly if you are decent enough to let your data RA be coauthors then you are penalized. Look at the thank you notes of any top 5 and you know how big data teams are nowadays. You might like or not, the future and present are big research labs a la Chetty.
The usual thing in the US is to weigh 1/sqrt(n). I would very much prefer for HB to adopt this option.
The usual thing in the US is to weigh 1/sqrt(n). I would very much prefer for HB to adopt this option.
This comes from your fantasies?
How serious is the Handelsblatt ranking? I am an econometrician and it is very strange that Annals of Statistics is not listed there. The reason is that AoS is not on the EconLit list. But it should be clear that this journal is important for economists. It is among the best statistics journals and there are many lower statistics journals (which aren't more related to economics) in the list.
The HB ranking is decent enough to give you a good idea about the general research output and tracetory of researchers. However, you are right in that some in- and exclusions of good journals are strange, especially given that there are literally hundreds of toilet journals included (everything from 300 downwards). I am more concerned about the penalty for multiple authored articles, though. Having, say, an AER with 3 more authors will not do much for your ranking.
What is wrong with having to share the 'fruits' of your joint(!) piece of work weighted by 1/(1 + n)? I guess n=3 in your case?
Yeah, but this not reality. Suppose you have a paper with someone from IAB, and the IAB researcher is on the paper because of data access. Should you really weigh by 1/2 or 1/3? Similarly if you are decent enough to let your data RA be coauthors then you are penalized. Look at the thank you notes of any top 5 and you know how big data teams are nowadays. You might like or not, the future and present are big research labs a la Chetty.
The usual thing in the US is to weigh 1/sqrt(n). I would very much prefer for HB to adopt this option.
Yeah, because you are not able to do research without coauthors. And you like to travel, go to conferences (beach in reality) and call that networking.
Yes, that's absolutely true. Thanks for recognizing my mode of work.
On a serious note: Most empirical economists now work with labs. You think because a) chetty, finkelstein, duflo are lazy and unable to write single author paper or b) the nature of work changed?Einstein wrote everything alone - at the beginning of last century. Today, the CERN paper have so many authors you cannot count them. In economics we hide the number of authors. I do not think that is good.
Stefan Homburg seems to have something for Science magazine:
https://advance.sagepub.com/articles/Comment_on_Dehning_et_al_Science_15_May_2020_eabb9789_Inferring_change_points_in_the_spread_of_COVID-19_reveals_the_effectiveness_of_interventions_/12362645/1
Has RR written papers on Covid19? Or has he spent the whole time on twitter?
Stefan Homburg seems to have something for Science magazine:
https://advance.sagepub.com/articles/Comment_on_Dehning_et_al_Science_15_May_2020_eabb9789_Inferring_change_points_in_the_spread_of_COVID-19_reveals_the_effectiveness_of_interventions_/12362645/1
How embarassing.
did not read through the comment, but it seems unlikely that the absucre team of authors around SH has something serious to say on the profound analysis of the Gottingen epidemiologists that they refer to. Don't think SH has heard of MCMC and Bayesian model comparisons
commenting without reading: great
did not read through the comment, but it seems unlikely that the absucre team of authors around SH has something serious to say on the profound analysis of the Gottingen epidemiologists that they refer to. Don't think SH has heard of MCMC and Bayesian model comparisonscommenting without reading: great
Gottingen epidemiologists? ROFL.
This is a Max Planck Institute for physics!
https://www.ds.mpg.de/forschung/abteilungen
Solltest vorher die IP wechseln, du Hirni...
did not read through the comment, but it seems unlikely that the absucre team of authors around SH has something serious to say on the profound analysis of the Gottingen epidemiologists that they refer to. Don't think SH has heard of MCMC and Bayesian model comparisonscommenting without reading: great
Imagine being SH:
Your CV is impressive:
- Abitur 1,3
- A number of nice professorships (Bonn, Magdeburg, Hannover) in the 1990s
- Celebrated as a "Wunderkind" in economics in the 1980s and 1990s
- Member of important federal commissions in Germany in the 1990s and 2000s
(https://www.fiwi.uni-hannover.de/homburg.html)
- Some nice publications (CJE, JPubE, JITE) until 2000
Then, the abyss: no one seems to care about your publications, your counsel, your opinions. Even worse, you are now the punching bag of RR and others, of younger scholars who overtake you left and right.
The last refugee: Twitter and interviews with "Alternative Medien" and criminal complaints about the "Systemmedien" (https://mobile.twitter.com/SHomburg/status/1268104249155584000) and ... finally, again: thunderous applause ... you have stared into the abyss long enough that the abyss stares back at you, it stares with the face of a thousand AfD voters.
At least he hasn’t written dumb papers on COVID-19.
Stefan Homburg seems to have something for Science magazine:
https://advance.sagepub.com/articles/Comment_on_Dehning_et_al_Science_15_May_2020_eabb9789_Inferring_change_points_in_the_spread_of_COVID-19_reveals_the_effectiveness_of_interventions_/12362645/1Has RR written papers on Covid19? Or has he spent the whole time on twitter?