Close

Complete Captcha

• 10 years - 41707 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 66435 Goods vs 49954 No Goods

1. Economist
   a979
   

   Many only read top 5 or top field. If it does not exist there, it does not exist.

   Top 5 only neeeds to cite Top field or above QED
   

   This explains why the papers in these journals always promote "innovative" and "new" findings. It is like living in a filter bubble

   This case is academic dishonesty, not simply networks doing networks' stuff in their bubble. The paper is on a policy relevant topic, and there is an earlier decently published contribution that reaches different policy implications using the same data. The most recent paper should at least try explaining why is this the case. Ignoring that article completely should not be allowed by the top ranked journal in the profession

   I would not speak of "dishonesty" (by the authors), I would suggest that we are facing "weak reveiwers" (who are not aware of the literature in the field).
   I hope that the authors will somehow get informed about the article in the ILRR and I totally agree that the authors must then discuss and explain the different results.

   It's obvious that they delibarately omitted that citation.

   7 months ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !

2. Economist
   a979
   

   Many only read top 5 or top field. If it does not exist there, it does not exist.

   Top 5 only neeeds to cite Top field or above QED
   

   This explains why the papers in these journals always promote "innovative" and "new" findings. It is like living in a filter bubble

   This case is academic dishonesty, not simply networks doing networks' stuff in their bubble. The paper is on a policy relevant topic, and there is an earlier decently published contribution that reaches different policy implications using the same data. The most recent paper should at least try explaining why is this the case. Ignoring that article completely should not be allowed by the top ranked journal in the profession

   I would not speak of "dishonesty" (by the authors), I would suggest that we are facing "weak reveiwers" (who are not aware of the literature in the field).
   I hope that the authors will somehow get informed about the article in the ILRR and I totally agree that the authors must then discuss and explain the different results.

   It's obvious that they delibarately omitted that citation.

   At least that is what I suspect.

   7 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

3. Economist
   9129
   

   At least that is what I suspect.

   Typical Dustmann move. Keep away from that guy!

   7 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

4. Economist
   14b7
   

   Bossler and Gerner is one of the first thing popping out from a quick search on Gemran MW. I believe there's dishonesty from both, authors and reviewers. The fact that a lot of people who are supposed to know what they are doing missed this paper is highly suspicious

   7 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

5. Economist
   429c
   

   Bossler and Gerner is one of the first thing popping out from a quick search on Gemran MW. I believe there's dishonesty from both, authors and reviewers. The fact that a lot of people who are supposed to know what they are doing missed this paper is highly suspicious

   Agree - this case is highly suspicious. I am also particularly puzzled by the fact that B&G have connections to the IAB. Therefore the contributions of these authors should be known at IAB and to the coauthors.
   Although I deeply hope that it is simple a flaw, which will be corrected, I completely understand the outrage and suspicions. Besides, it also looks very much like repeat offenders (CD? and or US?), if you can believe the forum... This tells me a lot...

   7 months ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

6. Economist
   c60f
   

   It is like hollywood movies. If it hasnt been published by Warner Bros. or is not on netflix, I do not even bother watching the film.

   7 months ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

7. Economist
   41db
   

   I only read journals with impact factor >15.

   All the rest is irrelevant!

   7 months ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

8. Economist
   5d32
   

   Seen that too often, bro. Doesn't matter if they are from your inst or not, if they steel your ideas or not. Just thinking of themselves and their ego. Beloved RR is no stranger to that business, btw.

   Bossler and Gerner is one of the first thing popping out from a quick search on Gemran MW. I believe there's dishonesty from both, authors and reviewers. The fact that a lot of people who are supposed to know what they are doing missed this paper is highly suspicious

   Agree - this case is highly suspicious. I am also particularly puzzled by the fact that B&G have connections to the IAB. Therefore the contributions of these authors should be known at IAB and to the coauthors.
   Although I deeply hope that it is simple a flaw, which will be corrected, I completely understand the outrage and suspicions. Besides, it also looks very much like repeat offenders (CD? and or US?), if you can believe the forum... This tells me a lot...

   7 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 1 No Jab !

9. Economist
   866c
   

   Agree - this case is highly suspicious. I am also particularly puzzled by the fact that B&G have connections to the IAB. Therefore the contributions of these authors should be known at IAB and to the coauthors.
   Although I deeply hope that it is simple a flaw, which will be corrected, I completely understand the outrage and suspicions. Besides, it also looks very much like repeat offenders (CD? and or US?), if you can believe the forum... This tells me a lot...

   It is certainly not an thoughtless omission. Bossler is the head of the minimum wage group at IAB and colleagues of at least one coauthor on the QJE R&R. No way they do not know about the other work.
   Seen this for another paper by CD and US where a closely related paper was ignored until it miraculously appeared in the published JPE.

   7 months ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

10. Economist
    c68d
    

    Agree - this case is highly suspicious. I am also particularly puzzled by the fact that B&G have connections to the IAB. Therefore the contributions of these authors should be known at IAB and to the coauthors.
    Although I deeply hope that it is simple a flaw, which will be corrected, I completely understand the outrage and suspicions. Besides, it also looks very much like repeat offenders (CD? and or US?), if you can believe the forum... This tells me a lot...
    It is certainly not an thoughtless omission. Bossler is the head of the minimum wage group at IAB and colleagues of at least one coauthor on the QJE R&R. No way they do not know about the other work.
    Seen this for another paper by CD and US where a closely related paper was ignored until it miraculously appeared in the published JPE.

    And then Top 5 people claim that you need to be the first who produces evidence on some topic to make it into these journals. It's a joke.

    7 months ago # QUOTE 4 Jab 0 No Jab !

11. Economist
    429c
    

    Agree - this case is highly suspicious. I am also particularly puzzled by the fact that B&G have connections to the IAB. Therefore the contributions of these authors should be known at IAB and to the coauthors.
    Although I deeply hope that it is simple a flaw, which will be corrected, I completely understand the outrage and suspicions. Besides, it also looks very much like repeat offenders (CD? and or US?), if you can believe the forum... This tells me a lot...
    It is certainly not an thoughtless omission. Bossler is the head of the minimum wage group at IAB and colleagues of at least one coauthor on the QJE R&R. No way they do not know about the other work.
    Seen this for another paper by CD and US where a closely related paper was ignored until it miraculously appeared in the published JPE.

    And then Top 5 people claim that you need to be the first who produces evidence on some topic to make it into these journals. It's a joke.

    No joke - good salesmen also lie all day long until they believe it themselves

    7 months ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

12. Economist
    8ba4
    

    Seen that too often, bro. Doesn't matter if they are from your inst or not, if they steel your ideas or not. Just thinking of themselves and their ego. Beloved RR is no stranger to that business, btw.

    Bossler and Gerner is one of the first thing popping out from a quick search on Gemran MW. I believe there's dishonesty from both, authors and reviewers. The fact that a lot of people who are supposed to know what they are doing missed this paper is highly suspicious

    Agree - this case is highly suspicious. I am also particularly puzzled by the fact that B&G have connections to the IAB. Therefore the contributions of these authors should be known at IAB and to the coauthors.
    Although I deeply hope that it is simple a flaw, which will be corrected, I completely understand the outrage and suspicions. Besides, it also looks very much like repeat offenders (CD? and or US?), if you can believe the forum... This tells me a lot...
    

    He is an expert in this.

    7 months ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 1 No Jab !

13. Economist
    fa28
    

    RR stealing ideas? Tell us more.

    7 months ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

14. Economist
    1c53
    

    An inferior journal in the bibliography of my top 5 article would sully my serious and innovative high-quality publication.

    7 months ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !

15. Economist
    5f68
    

    An inferior journal in the bibliography of my top 5 article would sully my serious and innovative high-quality publication.

    This. And editors and reviewers at the QJE seem to be fine with this attitude. The arrogance of power.

    7 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

16. Economist
    5d32
    

    Call it "adoption" without proper referencing, not "stealing" and regard yourself honorable.

    RR stealing ideas? Tell us more.

    7 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 1 No Jab !

17. Economist
    fa28
    

    Call it "adoption" without proper referencing, not "stealing" and regard yourself honorable.

    RR stealing ideas? Tell us more.
    

    Details?

    7 months ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

18. Economist
    2bbc
    

    Agree - this case is highly suspicious. I am also particularly puzzled by the fact that B&G have connections to the IAB. Therefore the contributions of these authors should be known at IAB and to the coauthors.
    Although I deeply hope that it is simple a flaw, which will be corrected, I completely understand the outrage and suspicions. Besides, it also looks very much like repeat offenders (CD? and or US?), if you can believe the forum... This tells me a lot...
    It is certainly not an thoughtless omission. Bossler is the head of the minimum wage group at IAB and colleagues of at least one coauthor on the QJE R&R. No way they do not know about the other work.
    Seen this for another paper by CD and US where a closely related paper was ignored until it miraculously appeared in the published JPE.

    And then Top 5 people claim that you need to be the first who produces evidence on some topic to make it into these journals. It's a joke.

    Especially Dustmann who recently wrote an op-ed for a German newspaper on how great the publication process at top journals in econ works...

    7 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

19. Economist
    8ba4
    

    Agree - this case is highly suspicious. I am also particularly puzzled by the fact that B&G have connections to the IAB. Therefore the contributions of these authors should be known at IAB and to the coauthors.
    Although I deeply hope that it is simple a flaw, which will be corrected, I completely understand the outrage and suspicions. Besides, it also looks very much like repeat offenders (CD? and or US?), if you can believe the forum... This tells me a lot...
    It is certainly not an thoughtless omission. Bossler is the head of the minimum wage group at IAB and colleagues of at least one coauthor on the QJE R&R. No way they do not know about the other work.
    Seen this for another paper by CD and US where a closely related paper was ignored until it miraculously appeared in the published JPE.

    And then Top 5 people claim that you need to be the first who produces evidence on some topic to make it into these journals. It's a joke.

    Exactly. Same stuff as everywhere. Once you are in the network, you are in

    7 months ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

20. Economist
    cadd
    

    An inferior journal in the bibliography of my top 5 article would sully my serious and innovative high-quality publication.

    This. And editors and reviewers at the QJE seem to be fine with this attitude. The arrogance of power.

    This case is worse. Failing to mention the other paper not only hides to the reader that the contribution is not so novel, but it also hides the fact that the results of Dustmann &co are obviously not robust to alternative specifications. In my view, this omission alone, no matter if intentional or not, should warrant a rejection from QJE. The authors grossly mis-represented existing evidences on the topic they are studying derived from the database that they are using. By the way, the ILRR gets cited plenty of times by top 5 journals.

    7 months ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !

Reply »