Why should media/bloggers like Karl get involved? What’s the scandal? Do you not expect variation in reviewer behavior, including a few outliers?
Hi Chordia?!
JFE report
-
One reason the papers by posters here were all rejected at JFE is they seem to not understand basics of statistical inference. For JFE to be a top journal, it’s acceptance rate must be low, more like 5%. Acceptance rate at this level must be right skewed, with very high density near zero. It’s only natural for some referees in the BS’s sample to have acceptance rates of zero. The average across all referees is 5%, and there’s no way you can infer individual referees’ using this data. Are EJMRers low iq?
-
Has any of those people on the list spoken about the importance to make our profession more inclusive? Because inclusiveness starts by giving people of all origins a chance at publishing.
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 -
Inclusive in the sense of including weak papers that don't clear the hurdle?
Has any of those people on the list spoken about the importance to make our profession more inclusive? Because inclusiveness starts by giving people of all origins a chance at publishing.
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 -
LOL, which hurdle? It’s f JFE!
Inclusive in the sense of including weak papers that don't clear the hurdle?
Has any of those people on the list spoken about the importance to make our profession more inclusive? Because inclusiveness starts by giving people of all origins a chance at publishing.
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 -
I'm also guessing that they were not rejected by the above (who BS likely used for more reputable authors).
One reason the papers by posters here were all rejected at JFE is they seem to not understand basics of statistical inference. For JFE to be a top journal, it’s acceptance rate must be low, more like 5%. Acceptance rate at this level must be right skewed, with very high density near zero. It’s only natural for some referees in the BS’s sample to have acceptance rates of zero. The average across all referees is 5%, and there’s no way you can infer individual referees’ using this data. Are EJMRers low iq?
-
Only an academic would think this way. Imagine you are Tarun or Brogaard or whoever. Around paper number ten, wouldn't you introspect just a bit and say, Gee, I sure seem to reject a lot of papers. Maybe I am being too harsh?
One reason the papers by posters here were all rejected at JFE is they seem to not understand basics of statistical inference. For JFE to be a top journal, it’s acceptance rate must be low, more like 5%. Acceptance rate at this level must be right skewed, with very high density near zero. It’s only natural for some referees in the BS’s sample to have acceptance rates of zero. The average across all referees is 5%, and there’s no way you can infer individual referees’ using this data. Are EJMRers low iq?
-
LRM losing hoap
Has any of those people on the list spoken about the importance to make our profession more inclusive? Because inclusiveness starts by giving people of all origins a chance at publishing.
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 -
I think it is normal that people kill each other's paper in our profession. It is a bad equilibrium that we end up with.
Still surprised that a person would reject every paper he reviews
Kill others’ paper so your paper has a higher chance to go through? This is bs
-
Reject the papers from strangers and enemies, then higher chance for the papers of your, your students, and your friends. This is more serious for conference papers. It is a war among clubs. Better joining a right club as soon as possible. Or join as many clubs as you can.