Wow, the "careerist" bros should be outraged about this. This is antithetical to science and is a bean counting oriented move.
A bean counting move would be to let co-authors with marginal to no contribution score another goal by publishing. To share on the co-authorship of a paper for career purposes is antithetical and antiscientific.
Well done JPE editors! It's time to start taking predator authors a few notches down.
Predatory authorship, a cancer in the sciences today
https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/predatory-authorship-a-cancer-in-the-sciences-today
Paper mill: what is it and why is it wrong?
https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/paper-mill-what-is-it-and-why-is-it-wrong
Ghost Authoring: How Professors Steal the Work of Their Students
https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/ghost-authoring-how-professors-steal-the-work-of-their-studentsYou're an absolute buffoon. You copy paste this nonsense on every thread about journals regardless of its relevance.
A fraudster taking issue. Your predatory practices are known and that's why nobody takes you seriously.
PGP is clueless enough to shiiiet post on Twitter about Judd within hours of there being a Judd topic on EJMR. Thanks for doxxing yourself, but we already knew you were here
Judd sent an email to a ton of people today saying that he had reactivated his blog. I don't know why but I was included in the list of people who got the email. I read the blogpost before I came to EJMR.
Still it's funny to see all these econtwitter people who are mostly applied micro and have never heard of Ken Judd speculating on what may have happened. The fact is that KJ has pretty much pissed everyone who has any semblance of influence in the profession. Some of his reasons may be legitimate, but I have also seen him do some really nasty things such as sh*tting on PhD students and entire programs and saying that department X should have never hired person Y because they are sloppy.
Wow, the "careerist" bros should be outraged about this. This is antithetical to science and is a bean counting oriented move.A bean counting move would be to let co-authors with marginal to no contribution score another goal by publishing. To share on the co-authorship of a paper for career purposes is antithetical and antiscientific.
"Score another goal" is bean counting. You just don't get it
This 100%!
The story here is not that exciting, I heard it second hand. The JPE editors wanted some mundane change. I don't remember, but it was about citations or something else very minor. KJ said no. JPE editor said if they don't do it, he wouldn't publish the paper. KJ said no, coauthors were upset, so KJ said to publish the paper without his name.
It sounds totally crazy, but if you know KJ, you know he would do this.
The story here is not that exciting, I heard it second hand. The JPE editors wanted some mundane change. I don't remember, but it was about citations or something else very minor. KJ said no. JPE editor said if they don't do it, he wouldn't publish the paper. KJ said no, coauthors were upset, so KJ said to publish the paper without his name.
It sounds totally crazy, but if you know KJ, you know he would do this.
Yes but the main issue is, did the "mundane change" get implemented by the remaining 2 coauthors afterwards?
- If yes, then the editors weren't being biased specifically towards KJ.
- If no, then the editors had an axe to grind against KJ, because they accepted the unchanged paper immediately after KJ's name was gone.
The funniest thing here is Stephen Seiler trying to act like a good person. This guy is absolute f!lth.
He should stop but/ting into things that will make people laugh at him more. Just keep his head low, continue writing papers, and hopefully come up with good research that will at least change some people's opinions of him.
The story here is not that exciting, I heard it second hand. The JPE editors wanted some mundane change. I don't remember, but it was about citations or something else very minor. KJ said no. JPE editor said if they don't do it, he wouldn't publish the paper. KJ said no, coauthors were upset, so KJ said to publish the paper without his name.
It sounds totally crazy, but if you know KJ, you know he would do this.
Thanks for this. I assumed it was something like that. If you doubt this post consider
a) KJ has a history of doing exactly this. Responding to a request to cite papers he did not approve of by publicly removing his name from a submitted paper.
b) His post "naming and shaming" the JPE was deliberately vague. An attempt to be delicate? Seems unlikely given KJ's aggressiveness about everything else. Also seems like he would be smart enough to know how a vague accusation would go down.
c) Actually saying "we might publish the article, but not if KJ is on it" is such a shocking thing for JPE to do. Not just ethically shocking, but shockingly silly. Obviously it couldn't be put into an email. That would be declaring war on someone and simultaneously giving him something he could use to destroy you by revealing publicly. So what do you think they did? Call him up and drop subtle hints like a mafia don? If they really wanted not to publish the paper because they disliked him, all they would have to do is politely send a rejection. It's JPE. No one would bat an eyelash if they rejected a paper.
It's nonsense. And KJ is being disingenuous by hinting at a more severe infraction on JPE's part. I wonder if JPE will find some way of publicly explaining the situation. If so, that could look really bad for him.
In the meantime, it's a shame that EconTwitter is pretending to consider that this is real as a way of venting their grudges against JPE and Chicago. Let's not make the same mistake on EJMR.
The story here is not that exciting, I heard it second hand. The JPE editors wanted some mundane change. I don't remember, but it was about citations or something else very minor. KJ said no. JPE editor said if they don't do it, he wouldn't publish the paper. KJ said no, coauthors were upset, so KJ said to publish the paper without his name.
It sounds totally crazy, but if you know KJ, you know he would do this.Thanks for this. I assumed it was something like that. If you doubt this post consider
a) KJ has a history of doing exactly this. Responding to a request to cite papers he did not approve of by publicly removing his name from a submitted paper.
b) His post "naming and shaming" the JPE was deliberately vague. An attempt to be delicate? Seems unlikely given KJ's aggressiveness about everything else. Also seems like he would be smart enough to know how a vague accusation would go down.
c) Actually saying "we might publish the article, but not if KJ is on it" is such a shocking thing for JPE to do. Not just ethically shocking, but shockingly silly. Obviously it couldn't be put into an email. That would be declaring war on someone and simultaneously giving him something he could use to destroy you by revealing publicly. So what do you think they did? Call him up and drop subtle hints like a mafia don? If they really wanted not to publish the paper because they disliked him, all they would have to do is politely send a rejection. It's JPE. No one would bat an eyelash if they rejected a paper.
It's nonsense. And KJ is being disingenuous by hinting at a more severe infraction on JPE's part. I wonder if JPE will find some way of publicly explaining the situation. If so, that could look really bad for him.
In the meantime, it's a shame that EconTwitter is pretending to consider that this is real as a way of venting their grudges against JPE and Chicago. Let's not make the same mistake on EJMR.
It's somewhat humorous, how KJ is on this website (maybe on this thread!) at this very moment and someone just wrote a scathing piece of him being "aggressive" here. Schadenfreude much?
An ex-committee member of mine insisted on putting his/her name on my paper. It was my initial idea, I wrote the entire paper. He/she didn't even understand the paper and never provided any useful suggestions. The worst part, that person didn't make tenure, and went to a place where publication doesn't matter.
Still insisted on claiming authorship on my work. I'm just a student, all I can do is have a joint work, remove that person from my committee, and move on.
I wonder who experienced worse coauthor experiences? Especially at the beginning of the career, it is so detrimental.
The story here is not that exciting, I heard it second hand. The JPE editors wanted some mundane change. I don't remember, but it was about citations or something else very minor. KJ said no. JPE editor said if they don't do it, he wouldn't publish the paper. KJ said no, coauthors were upset, so KJ said to publish the paper without his name.
It sounds totally crazy, but if you know KJ, you know he would do this.
Sounds reasonable except the references on the 2017 working paper and the JPE paper are almost the same. Judd's name still appears 5 or 6 times.