Can we chat about TW? 19 accept, 68 reject (22%), with a 16 day turnaround! This gives me hope.
JFE report
-
Jonathan brogaard is two faced. I’ve always knoen
He falls into the “knows he is no good and so assumes he couldn’t get a good paper” group. He is nothing if not opportunistic, but he doesn’t do research.
Wow, JB at utah. The referee gods have been very generous to him. Sad he hasn't been kind in return.
Hasnt he had a fantastic run the last two years?
-
reality check: people with quick turnaround and high acceptance rates are often people that exchange favors and benefit from doing so. think twice before you make someone a hero.
yeah. right. any acceptance rate within 5-30 is reasonable. one that is below 5 says a lot.
-
Journal is I think around 7-8% acceptance rate. With small denominator anything above zero is good for most people unless one has referred like 40 papers. So clubbing zero acceptance with rest dilutes the message of OP.
reality check: people with quick turnaround and high acceptance rates are often people that exchange favors and benefit from doing so. think twice before you make someone a hero.
yeah. right. any acceptance rate within 5-30 is reasonable. one that is below 5 says a lot.
-
reality check: people with quick turnaround and high acceptance rates are often people that exchange favors and benefit from doing so. think twice before you make someone a hero.
yeah. right. any acceptance rate within 5-30 is reasonable. one that is below 5 says a lot.
whose papers are they accepting? friends? rochester graduates?
i agree acceptance rate being below 5 pct reveals sth is wrong with the reviewer.
-
https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/jfe-list-of-reviewers/page/7#post-6372194
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%)The analysis is simplified, but the point is that for the 8 referees who have reviewed 30+ times and have 0 acceptances, they're either excessively harsh, or Schwert decided to waste multiple senior faculty's time with bad papers.