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.
You should review high school math.
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.You should review high school math.
lmao
This is JFE.. and there are so many people accepted more than 20%.. and you tell me this has nothing to do with connections? I have no problem at all with those who rejected all papers, do you think these guys never got a paper from their friends? and yet they rejected all. Much better than accepting papers based on connections. It looks a joke to me that so many people accepted more than 20% while the overall acceptance rate is much lower. Corruption.
This is a very good insight that I don’t expect people on this board to understand and appreciate.
This is JFE.. and there are so many people accepted more than 20%.. and you tell me this has nothing to do with connections? I have no problem at all with those who rejected all papers, do you think these guys never got a paper from their friends? and yet they rejected all. Much better than accepting papers based on connections. It looks a joke to me that so many people accepted more than 20% while the overall acceptance rate is much lower. Corruption.
Your subjective opinion of papers has less value than you think it does. "Curation" value seems to be actively holding back science.
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.
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.
What a whiner you are
Looser
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 is JFE.. and there are so many people accepted more than 20%.. and you tell me this has nothing to do with connections? I have no problem at all with those who rejected all papers, do you think these guys never got a paper from their friends? and yet they rejected all. Much better than accepting papers based on connections. It looks a joke to me that so many people accepted more than 20% while the overall acceptance rate is much lower. Corruption.
only chi*nks think accepting a paper is corruption
Come on! Are you guys so naive or acting naive.
A well known paper presented at many conferences has higher likelihood of getting accepted. The editor has all this information from the footnote. These higher likelihood papers are sent to certain people. These people will have a higher than average acceptance ratio.
This is a very good insight that I don’t expect people on this board to understand and appreciate.
This is JFE.. and there are so many people accepted more than 20%.. and you tell me this has nothing to do with connections? I have no problem at all with those who rejected all papers, do you think these guys never got a paper from their friends? and yet they rejected all. Much better than accepting papers based on connections. It looks a joke to me that so many people accepted more than 20% while the overall acceptance rate is much lower. Corruption.
This is nothing but pure speculation of what actually happened. The fact is that these people found others papers worthy of publication. You can’t seriously believe that they only accepted papers from their friends and that they only received papers from their friends or well connected people unless you can prove this with hard facts. Also do you not understand that the low overall acceptance rate is influenced by the serial rejectors? Do you even distribution bro?
This is JFE.. and there are so many people accepted more than 20%.. and you tell me this has nothing to do with connections? I have no problem at all with those who rejected all papers, do you think these guys never got a paper from their friends? and yet they rejected all. Much better than accepting papers based on connections. It looks a joke to me that so many people accepted more than 20% while the overall acceptance rate is much lower. Corruption.
4700 is obviously one of the serial rejectors. S/he's now desperately trying to influence opinions on ejmr about such types. I bet you even if s/he does not reject every single paper, s/he is the actual kind that only accept their friends' papers.
Certain individuals should just not be allowed in this profession.
This is nothing but pure speculation of what actually happened. The fact is that these people found others papers worthy of publication. You can’t seriously believe that they only accepted papers from their friends and that they only received papers from their friends or well connected people unless you can prove this with hard facts. Also do you not understand that the low overall acceptance rate is influenced by the serial rejectors? Do you even distribution bro?
This is JFE.. and there are so many people accepted more than 20%.. and you tell me this has nothing to do with connections? I have no problem at all with those who rejected all papers, do you think these guys never got a paper from their friends? and yet they rejected all. Much better than accepting papers based on connections. It looks a joke to me that so many people accepted more than 20% while the overall acceptance rate is much lower. Corruption.
61-0 is indefensibleAt 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
absolutely. WTF are these people. These non-entities are the gate keepers? Hilarious.
61-0 is indefensibleAt 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 researchabsolutely. WTF are these people. These non-entities are the gate keepers? Hilarious.
This.