Atlanta (Emory, Georgia Tech, GSU) finance is a cesspool
JFE - List of reviewers
-
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 - 20aces
-
When a bad paper gets in the JFE, EJMR freaks out.
When referees reject a lot of papers at the JFE, EJMR freaks out.Correction: When a bad paper by a member of the club gets in EJMR freaks out. If it was truly random an occasional bad paper by a junior might slip through just as likely as one by a member of the club. We all know what really happens.
-
Im going to make sure I will always reject these people’s papers.
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 -
61-0 is indefensible
At least Chordia is a well-known person who is a plausible referee.
I had to google some of the other names on the 100% reject list and, unsurprisingly, always found a Rochester connection, no top 3 pubs outside of JFE and mediocre-looking research
-
61-0 is indefensible
At least Chordia is a well-known person who is a plausible referee.
I had to google some of the other names on the 100% reject list and, unsurprisingly, always found a Rochester connection, no top 3 pubs outside of JFE and mediocre-looking researchSounds like you are somehow defending the indefensible.
How is he a plausible referee if his record is 61-0?
Maybe by 'plausible' you mean something different to 'credible'. -
Regardless, 61-0 is not defensible. No matter who you are, how can you review 61 papers and find none of them good enough for the JFE?
Also, since he is senior, what are the odds only gets sent sh.ei.t papers? I can see how I as a junior only get the bottom of the barrel, but not him.
-
one has to be careful with extrapolating too much from this list. I am not saying that it is not a useful data point, but I've read horrible tenure letters written by some with the highest acceptance rates on this list...
Bro, these guys get to referee their friends' paper - that's their role. This is all highly endogenous.
-
61-0 is indefensible
At least Chordia is a well-known person who is a plausible referee.
I had to google some of the other names on the 100% reject list and, unsurprisingly, always found a Rochester connection, no top 3 pubs outside of JFE and mediocre-looking researchThose are effectively desk rejections with a courtesy referee report.
Also, I recently recommended an R&R on a paper but I’m listed as having zero acceptances. I think that 20+ is a reasonable sample size, but anything less than 10 is definitely too small to make judgments about the referee.
-
one has to be careful with extrapolating too much from this list. I am not saying that it is not a useful data point, but I've read horrible tenure letters written by some with the highest acceptance rates on this list...
Of course, there is something we are not seeing. Naturally these high rates also show some non randomness, i.e. a bias.