chapman is a good place!
JFE report
-
Is any of the information on the first page of this thread legitimate? At this point I have no time to read 25 pages of responses.
What do you mean
I mean is the information correct? Is it right that those scholars rejected all those papers and where did those stats come from?
-
Is any of the information on the first page of this thread legitimate? At this point I have no time to read 25 pages of responses.
What do you mean
I mean is the information correct? Is it right that those scholars rejected all those papers and where did those stats come from?
Bill Schwert published an online appendix about JFE editing stats. But the reviewers (who rejected all) did not like it and forced him to remove the table, which he did. But given it was online briefly, everyone has a copy of it
-
True info from editor
Is any of the information on the first page of this thread legitimate? At this point I have no time to read 25 pages of responses.
What do you mean
I mean is the information correct? Is it right that those scholars rejected all those papers and where did those stats come from?
-
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3722314
You should reject all the papers from the following authors, who refereed large number of papers but did not accept a single one of them. One of those rejected papers might be yours.
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 -
list of snakes
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3722314
You should reject all the papers from the following authors, who refereed large number of papers but did not accept a single one of them. One of those rejected papers might be yours.
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 -
Additional list of referees with excessively high rejection rates (0 acceptance out of 15-20 reviews, 1 acceptance out of 20+ reviews, or 2 acceptances out of 50+ reviews):
Loughran, Timothy
Jegadeesh, Narasimhan
Seyhun, H. Nejat
Hadlock, Charles
Barinov, Alexander
Heitzman, Shane M.
Guay, Wayne R.
Kahle, Kathleen
Ready, Robert C.
Hertzel, Michael G
Albuquerque, Rui
Holderness, Clifford
Rouwenhorst, K. Geert
Knyazeva, Anzhela
Fich, Eliezer M.
Pan, Jun
Fahlenbrach, Rudiger
Campello, Murillo
McConnell, John J.
Dew-Becker, Ian
Garleanu, Nicolae
Bhagat, Sanjai
Chernov, Mikhail
Poulsen, Annette
Engelberg, Joseph E.
Purnanandam, Amiyatosh
Reed, Adam V.
Tate, Geoffrey A.
Bakke, Tor-Erik
Opp, Christian C.
Whaley, Robert
Johnson, Timothy C
So, Eric C.
Allayannis, George
Da, Zhi
Schaefer, Scott
Drechsler, Itamar
Gillan, Stuart L.
Kiku, Dana
Gustafson, Matthew
Nini, Gregory
Mann, William
Seasholes, Mark S. -
Additional list of referees with excessively high rejection rates (0 acceptance out of 15-20 reviews, 1 acceptance out of 20+ reviews, or 2 acceptances out of 50+ reviews):
Loughran, Timothy
Jegadeesh, Narasimhan
Seyhun, H. Nejat
Hadlock, Charles
Barinov, Alexander
Heitzman, Shane M.
Guay, Wayne R.
Kahle, Kathleen
Ready, Robert C.
Hertzel, Michael G
Albuquerque, Rui
Holderness, Clifford
Rouwenhorst, K. Geert
Knyazeva, Anzhela
Fich, Eliezer M.
Pan, Jun
Fahlenbrach, Rudiger
Campello, Murillo
McConnell, John J.
Dew-Becker, Ian
Garleanu, Nicolae
Bhagat, Sanjai
Chernov, Mikhail
Poulsen, Annette
Engelberg, Joseph E.
Purnanandam, Amiyatosh
Reed, Adam V.
Tate, Geoffrey A.
Bakke, Tor-Erik
Opp, Christian C.
Whaley, Robert
Johnson, Timothy C
So, Eric C.
Allayannis, George
Da, Zhi
Schaefer, Scott
Drechsler, Itamar
Gillan, Stuart L.
Kiku, Dana
Gustafson, Matthew
Nini, Gregory
Mann, William
Seasholes, Mark S.look at those names: Jun, Itamar, Ian
they are the professors I respected a lot in the past. they gave me an impression of a solid and high-quality asset pricer. this might partially explain why they tend to reject more papers.
but editors should know of this fact more than I do, so I don't believe editors would bother them with lower-than-average quality papers that often. finally, there is simply no way to justify their high reject rate than the "two-facedness"
-
these people are insane
Additional list of referees with excessively high rejection rates (0 acceptance out of 15-20 reviews, 1 acceptance out of 20+ reviews, or 2 acceptances out of 50+ reviews):
Loughran, Timothy
Jegadeesh, Narasimhan
Seyhun, H. Nejat
Hadlock, Charles
Barinov, Alexander
Heitzman, Shane M.
Guay, Wayne R.
Kahle, Kathleen
Ready, Robert C.
Hertzel, Michael G
Albuquerque, Rui
Holderness, Clifford
Rouwenhorst, K. Geert
Knyazeva, Anzhela
Fich, Eliezer M.
Pan, Jun
Fahlenbrach, Rudiger
Campello, Murillo
McConnell, John J.
Dew-Becker, Ian
Garleanu, Nicolae
Bhagat, Sanjai
Chernov, Mikhail
Poulsen, Annette
Engelberg, Joseph E.
Purnanandam, Amiyatosh
Reed, Adam V.
Tate, Geoffrey A.
Bakke, Tor-Erik
Opp, Christian C.
Whaley, Robert
Johnson, Timothy C
So, Eric C.
Allayannis, George
Da, Zhi
Schaefer, Scott
Drechsler, Itamar
Gillan, Stuart L.
Kiku, Dana
Gustafson, Matthew
Nini, Gregory
Mann, William
Seasholes, Mark S.look at those names: Jun, Itamar, Ian
they are the professors I respected a lot in the past. they gave me an impression of a solid and high-quality asset pricer. this might partially explain why they tend to reject more papers.
but editors should know of this fact more than I do, so I don't believe editors would bother them with lower-than-average quality papers that often. finally, there is simply no way to justify their high reject rate than the "two-facedness" -
So funny how people are focused on high rejection rates. Use your brain for one minute: JFE corrution is fed by high acceptance rates of many referees who might be giving favors to friends by accepting their bad papers. People on this list likely have very high standards. BTW, how would a journal defend its “top” status if all referees accountable %10+ of what they review??
-
So funny how people are focused on high rejection rates. Use your brain for one minute: JFE corrution is fed by high acceptance rates of many referees who might be giving favors to friends by accepting their bad papers. People on this list likely have very high standards. BTW, how would a journal defend its “top” status if all referees accountable %10+ of what they review??
It's the heterogeneous standards
-
True maybe for some, but many of these it is clear it is not “high standard” and them either (1) never being trusted with a good paper by an editor, (2) protecting their turf, or (3) being TW’s personal attack dog (Tor Erik Bakke)
So funny how people are focused on high rejection rates. Use your brain for one minute: JFE corrution is fed by high acceptance rates of many referees who might be giving favors to friends by accepting their bad papers. People on this list likely have very high standards. BTW, how would a journal defend its “top” status if all referees accountable %10+ of what they review??
-
exactly
These people are toxic bunchTrue maybe for some, but many of these it is clear it is not “high standard” and them either (1) never being trusted with a good paper by an editor, (2) protecting their turf, or (3) being TW’s personal attack dog (Tor Erik Bakke)
So funny how people are focused on high rejection rates. Use your brain for one minute: JFE corrution is fed by high acceptance rates of many referees who might be giving favors to friends by accepting their bad papers. People on this list likely have very high standards. BTW, how would a journal defend its “top” status if all referees accountable %10+ of what they review??