There is no such thing as a courtesy report.
what is the right benchmark number though? journal acceptance rates are so low anyway. I know these numbers are after desk reject, which takes away at least half or more of rejections. Some of these are probably courtesy reports as others have said.
So 1/20 is low but only by a couple papers.
There is no such thing as a courtesy report.
what is the right benchmark number though? journal acceptance rates are so low anyway. I know these numbers are after desk reject, which takes away at least half or more of rejections. Some of these are probably courtesy reports as others have said.
So 1/20 is low but only by a couple papers.
You must have never written one then
She’s a senior Rochester accounting professor. Excellent researcher. Probably brought in for papers on the border of accounting and finance. Suggests JFE and JAE draws are not independent.
Who the hell is Joanna Wu and why is she reviewing so many papers for the JFE?
You don’t get. Saying that you write a courtesy report reflects poorly on YOU. Do your job and be professional. There is no such thing as a courtesy report.
There is no such thing as a courtesy report.what is the right benchmark number though? journal acceptance rates are so low anyway. I know these numbers are after desk reject, which takes away at least half or more of rejections. Some of these are probably courtesy reports as others have said.
So 1/20 is low but only by a couple papers.
You must have never written one then
Probably. So there are certainly referee fixed effects. Schwert has learned them over time, and perhaps effectively been using them.
Another point. Schwert has these numbers, and has kept them for a long time. If he thinks a specific referee is doing a bad job rejecting 61 papers, he would not ask for the 62nd. Schwert keeps pretty good track of referee reputations.
what is the right benchmark number though? journal acceptance rates are so low anyway. I know these numbers are after desk reject, which takes away at least half or more of rejections. Some of these are probably courtesy reports as others have said.
So 1/20 is low but only by a couple papers.
Moments computed from a binomial distribution can be a good benchmark. In this case, Mode the most likely outcome, would be the easiest to interpret.
Assuming JFE's unconditional rejection rate is 91% and papers are distributed IID, mode is int(p*(n+1)). For some selected numbers the most likely outcome would be:
Refereed Rejected Accepted
5 5 0
10 10 0
20 19 1
30 28 2
40 37 3
50 46 4
60 55 5
An observation with 20 rejections out of 20 reviews is not that unusual (it would be the third most likely outcome). But a 0 out of 30 or 40 or more would be rare to occur.
A 60 paper referee has likely accepted 5 and rejected 55. Chance of that referee rejecting all 60 is very low (~0.3%). Thus, this referee is either 1) biased toward rejection, or 2) has been receiving bad papers (p>91%)
Schwert algorithm:
Step 1 : paper from LRM or non - Rochester affiliated, desk reject or assign to Rochester PhD students
Step 2 : bad paper from HRM (don’t have the blls to desk reject), give it to high reject rate referees
Step 3 : good paper from HRM — send it to referees.
These people should be grateful that AFA this year is on webinar. Else everyone will be rumoring about them at Chicago now.
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
I am one of those 50 people named in the JFE referee list.
I did my job in the best way I could. None of those 15+ papers were up to JFE standard. By rejecting them, I contributed to welfare of the profession. Now I am being shamed publicly. I will tell the new editors to accept whatever they assign me going forward. It is their job to filter out the junk now.
Thank you for making my job easier.
this would have been plausible if there weren't 10+ people with 30+ rejections. you mean to tell me a senior with 61 rejected papers is regular?
I am one of those 50 people named in the JFE referee list.
I did my job in the best way I could. None of those 15+ papers were up to JFE standard. By rejecting them, I contributed to welfare of the profession. Now I am being shamed publicly. I will tell the new editors to accept whatever they assign me going forward. It is their job to filter out the junk now.
Thank you for making my job easier.
Come on, you're supposed to be economists. Surely you know that the allocation of papers to referees is not random. Editors give bad papers to some referees, good ones to others. Editors also filter known negative referees. Read this at least in part backwards -- which referees did Schwert assign papers that looked very likely to fail? Also, not all referees accept doing the job randomly. I don't waste time writing many negative reports.
You are assuming that Schwert read the paper before sending it out. For my published JFE papers, I am quite sure he never read the papers.
Consider the following thought experiment... All papers are assigned at random according to the observed number of reports they have done. Let's say every referee rejects/accepts each paper at the overall acceptance rate. Is it that surprising that we will find one referee who has reviewed 61 papers but hasn't accepted any? Note that this person is ranked 80th in terms of the number of papers reviewed.