Close

Complete Captcha

• 1 year - 95 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 475 Goods vs 87 No Goods

1. Economist
   2239
   

   From the website:

   An example of the "Tyranny of the top five"
   The documents below detail the battle I had with JPE regarding a paper I wrote and submitted to JPE in November, 2012.

   Here is the short version:

   JPE rejected the paper because we did uncertainty quantification, also known as sensitivity analysis.

   I contacted Jim Heckman regarding this decision, and he told us to change the title, resubmit the paper and that he would handle the new submission.

   Heckman said that he would reject the paper if -- in public comments and not in the paper -- I criticized the JPE editor for the hostility to uncertainty quantification.

   I obeyed Heckman's gag order while we worked on the revision. However, when we sent the revision to JPE I took my name off the paper.

   I contacted the University of Chicago asking if Heckman's threats violated their standards for freedom of speech. The answer from UC was emphatic approval of Heckman's threats.

   The paper came out in JPE in December, 2019.

   In 2020, I asked JPE if I could publicly display the correspondence regarding this matter. They agreed. I post the documents below.

   The emails below show that many people at UC were aware of this conflict. No one expressed any criticism of how JPE treated this paper. While my comments focus on my emails with Heckman, it is clear that all the people who knew about this fully supported Heckman in his threats. Heckman was merely the chief spokesman of a gang of UC professors and administrators who believe that it is appropriate for a journal editor to use his editorial power to silence those who want to criticize standard economic methodology.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

2. Economist
   2b27
   

   nobody cares~ fight between big names

   young APs got bullied all the time

   1 year ago # QUOTE 6 Volod 0 Vlad !

3. Economist
   7650
   

   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.

   Yes, I have had instances where someone (today the chair of a US econ department) decided to go full deadwood but invited his friend to join a paper as a ghost coauthor. Zero input, not even responding to a mundane email, but the name has to be there.

   The result? No more work got done, whole team got depressed. Idea got thrown out, good work spoiled. Guess what, incentives matter.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

4. Economist
   30ac
   

   Let me summarise it for you.

   Big shot, HRM economist with zillions pubs, KJ, gets paper rejected by JPE with multiple negative reports. Big shot then uses personal connections with Nobel prize winners to get decision reversed. Editors bend backwards to accommodate big shot’s requests and are happy to reverse the decision. They have just one request: that big shot does not use this opportunity to make personal attacks to much younger and female editor, who had the audacity not to bow to big shot’s brilliance. big shot refuses; not only wants to publish rejected paper, wants a platform to humiliate those who disagree with him. Unhappy with not getting 100% of his wishes, as is his divine right, big shot writes ranting and incoherent letter to university’s president. big shot gets ignored by president, who, honestly, has more important matters to attend to.

   Big shot presents himself as defender of the weak against the tyranny of the top 5. Big shot apparently makes such claims un-ironically.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 39 Volod 3 Vlad !

5. Economist
   c764
   

   Let me summarise it for you.
   Big shot, HRM economist with zillions pubs, KJ, gets paper rejected by JPE with multiple negative reports. Big shot then uses personal connections with Nobel prize winners to get decision reversed. Editors bend backwards to accommodate big shot’s requests and are happy to reverse the decision. They have just one request: that big shot does not use this opportunity to make personal attacks to much younger and female editor, who had the audacity not to bow to big shot’s brilliance. big shot refuses; not only wants to publish rejected paper, wants a platform to humiliate those who disagree with him. Unhappy with not getting 100% of his wishes, as is his divine right, big shot writes ranting and incoherent letter to university’s president. big shot gets ignored by president, who, honestly, has more important matters to attend to.
   Big shot presents himself as defender of the weak against the tyranny of the top 5. Big shot apparently makes such claims un-ironically.

   Excellent summary.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

6. Economist
   0580
   

   Let me summarise it for you.
   Big shot, HRM economist with zillions pubs, KJ, gets paper rejected by JPE with multiple negative reports. Big shot then uses personal connections with Nobel prize winners to get decision reversed. Editors bend backwards to accommodate big shot’s requests and are happy to reverse the decision. They have just one request: that big shot does not use this opportunity to make personal attacks to much younger and female editor, who had the audacity not to bow to big shot’s brilliance. big shot refuses; not only wants to publish rejected paper, wants a platform to humiliate those who disagree with him. Unhappy with not getting 100% of his wishes, as is his divine right, big shot writes ranting and incoherent letter to university’s president. big shot gets ignored by president, who, honestly, has more important matters to attend to.
   Big shot presents himself as defender of the weak against the tyranny of the top 5. Big shot apparently makes such claims un-ironically.

   It is not a “personal attack”. It is a critique that we should discuss in the literature review. There is no academic reason to omit it. Chicago faculty is spending too much time in ejmr

   1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

7. Economist
   67ba
   

   The funniest thing here is Stephen Seiler trying to act like a good person. This guy is absolute f!lth.

   Facts

   1 year ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

8. Economist
   67ba
   

   Whenever I see Stephan tweet, I just cringe. Does this guy have no shame? Orchestrated and was involved in one of the biggest cases of bullying in this profession's history but tries to act like the good guy on Twitter?

   1 year ago # QUOTE 10 Volod 0 Vlad !

9. Economist
   52a4
   

   Let me summarise it for you.
   Big shot, HRM economist with zillions pubs, KJ, gets paper rejected by JPE with multiple negative reports. Big shot then uses personal connections with Nobel prize winners to get decision reversed. Editors bend backwards to accommodate big shot’s requests and are happy to reverse the decision. They have just one request: that big shot does not use this opportunity to make personal attacks to much younger and female editor, who had the audacity not to bow to big shot’s brilliance. big shot refuses; not only wants to publish rejected paper, wants a platform to humiliate those who disagree with him. Unhappy with not getting 100% of his wishes, as is his divine right, big shot writes ranting and incoherent letter to university’s president. big shot gets ignored by president, who, honestly, has more important matters to attend to.
   Big shot presents himself as defender of the weak against the tyranny of the top 5. Big shot apparently makes such claims un-ironically.

   It is not a “personal attack”. It is a critique that we should discuss in the literature review. There is no academic reason to omit it. Chicago faculty is spending too much time in ejmr

   All the editor in question did was receive unanimously negative reports, relay them to the authors, and accordingly reject the paper. She even granted them a second round of revisions despite all negative reports in the first round.

   KJ accuses her of being anti-scientific because she elected not to overrule the referees' unanimous recommendation. He then asserts that she must have deliberately chosen negative referees, because when he presented the paper at a conference everyone was so encouraging. I would say that these allegations venture into personal smears rather than scientific critiques.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 8 Volod 0 Vlad !

10. Economist
    d9d3
    

    So econ twitter, as usual clueless, speculates that Uhlig forced Judd to drop coauthorship.

    Now it comes out Judd was the perpetrator, bullying (like a mafia don with wild threats) Heckman and Uhlig into reversing a clear and deserved rejection.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 6 Volod 0 Vlad !

11. Economist
    d9d3
    

    The whole story couldn't be more twisted.

    Judd claims on his blog he was forced by JPE to remove his name from the paper to get it published.

    Econtwitter cries out about JPE being corrupt, blaming Uhlig.

    Turns out JPE is indeed corrupt, but in a totally different way.

    Judd sent the paper to JPE, handled by Piazzesi. She receives 5 begative referee reports, still invites a revision. Would never had happened without Judd's name on it.

    They send back an unresponsive revision, Piazzesi suspects it won't turn over the referees. So instead of sending it back to them, she send them a long list of suggested improvements in the hope this will increase the paper's chances. Again, would never have happened with a normal, non-HRM author.

    They send back the second revision, she passes it on to the referees. Referees unsurprisingly are still unanomously negative. Piazzesi does the only correct thing to pull the plug and reject.

    Not being satisfied with their already totally priviledged treatment, Judd writes to his personal friend Heckman, bullying him with maifoa-like methods into reversing Piazzesi's decision. Just as mafia-like, Heckman complies, assigning the paper to Uhlig and concealing the fact from Piazzesi. Judd even threatens to walk over to Piazzesi and reveal it to her unless they further comply with his requests. At this point, Heckman and Uhlig essentially say, we gave you enough, now at least shut up. They publish the paper, Judd withdraws his name completely out of the blue. (Neither Heckman nor Uhlig ever even suggested this.)

    So what's the bottom line? Piazzesi seems to be the only one who behaved somewhat professionally (although even she bent over backwards to try and help the paper). Judd's behavior sounds borderline criminal, certainly totally crazy. Heckman and Uhlig were corrupt, but not in hurting anyone but in favoring an already priviledged HRM.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 23 Volod 0 Vlad !

12. Economist
    3478
    

    The whole story couldn't be more twisted.
    Judd claims on his blog he was forced by JPE to remove his name from the paper to get it published.
    Econtwitter cries out about JPE being corrupt, blaming Uhlig.
    Turns out JPE is indeed corrupt, but in a totally different way.
    Judd sent the paper to JPE, handled by Piazzesi. She receives 5 begative referee reports, still invites a revision. Would never had happened without Judd's name on it.
    They send back an unresponsive revision, Piazzesi suspects it won't turn over the referees. So instead of sending it back to them, she send them a long list of suggested improvements in the hope this will increase the paper's chances. Again, would never have happened with a normal, non-HRM author.
    They send back the second revision, she passes it on to the referees. Referees unsurprisingly are still unanomously negative. Piazzesi does the only correct thing to pull the plug and reject.
    Not being satisfied with their already totally priviledged treatment, Judd writes to his personal friend Heckman, bullying him with maifoa-like methods into reversing Piazzesi's decision. Just as mafia-like, Heckman complies, assigning the paper to Uhlig and concealing the fact from Piazzesi. Judd even threatens to walk over to Piazzesi and reveal it to her unless they further comply with his requests. At this point, Heckman and Uhlig essentially say, we gave you enough, now at least shut up. They publish the paper, Judd withdraws his name completely out of the blue. (Neither Heckman nor Uhlig ever even suggested this.)
    So what's the bottom line? Piazzesi seems to be the only one who behaved somewhat professionally (although even she bent over backwards to try and help the paper). Judd's behavior sounds borderline criminal, certainly totally crazy. Heckman and Uhlig were corrupt, but not in hurting anyone but in favoring an already priviledged HRM.

    That's a good summary. KJ complaints about the corruption of the profession'elite applies to himself in the first place.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

13. Economist
    32f4
    

    Truth is real science
    Distance = speed * time

    Bullshit and useless = social science papers be it any category

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

14. Economist
    60ec
    

    Judd not Law.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

15. Economist
    1006
    

    The whole story couldn't be more twisted.
    Judd claims on his blog he was forced by JPE to remove his name from the paper to get it published.
    Econtwitter cries out about JPE being corrupt, blaming Uhlig.
    Turns out JPE is indeed corrupt, but in a totally different way.
    Judd sent the paper to JPE, handled by Piazzesi. She receives 5 begative referee reports, still invites a revision. Would never had happened without Judd's name on it.
    They send back an unresponsive revision, Piazzesi suspects it won't turn over the referees. So instead of sending it back to them, she send them a long list of suggested improvements in the hope this will increase the paper's chances. Again, would never have happened with a normal, non-HRM author.
    They send back the second revision, she passes it on to the referees. Referees unsurprisingly are still unanomously negative. Piazzesi does the only correct thing to pull the plug and reject.
    Not being satisfied with their already totally priviledged treatment, Judd writes to his personal friend Heckman, bullying him with maifoa-like methods into reversing Piazzesi's decision. Just as mafia-like, Heckman complies, assigning the paper to Uhlig and concealing the fact from Piazzesi. Judd even threatens to walk over to Piazzesi and reveal it to her unless they further comply with his requests. At this point, Heckman and Uhlig essentially say, we gave you enough, now at least shut up. They publish the paper, Judd withdraws his name completely out of the blue. (Neither Heckman nor Uhlig ever even suggested this.)
    So what's the bottom line? Piazzesi seems to be the only one who behaved somewhat professionally (although even she bent over backwards to try and help the paper). Judd's behavior sounds borderline criminal, certainly totally crazy. Heckman and Uhlig were corrupt, but not in hurting anyone but in favoring an already priviledged HRM.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

16. Economist
    1006
    

    Great summary! Shame on Piazzesi! Shame on Uhlig! Shame on Heckman! Shame on Judd!! Shame on JPE!!! Economics profession is a fuxx joke!!!

    The whole story couldn't be more twisted.
    Judd claims on his blog he was forced by JPE to remove his name from the paper to get it published.
    Econtwitter cries out about JPE being corrupt, blaming Uhlig.
    Turns out JPE is indeed corrupt, but in a totally different way.
    Judd sent the paper to JPE, handled by Piazzesi. She receives 5 begative referee reports, still invites a revision. Would never had happened without Judd's name on it.
    They send back an unresponsive revision, Piazzesi suspects it won't turn over the referees. So instead of sending it back to them, she send them a long list of suggested improvements in the hope this will increase the paper's chances. Again, would never have happened with a normal, non-HRM author.
    They send back the second revision, she passes it on to the referees. Referees unsurprisingly are still unanomously negative. Piazzesi does the only correct thing to pull the plug and reject.
    Not being satisfied with their already totally priviledged treatment, Judd writes to his personal friend Heckman, bullying him with maifoa-like methods into reversing Piazzesi's decision. Just as mafia-like, Heckman complies, assigning the paper to Uhlig and concealing the fact from Piazzesi. Judd even threatens to walk over to Piazzesi and reveal it to her unless they further comply with his requests. At this point, Heckman and Uhlig essentially say, we gave you enough, now at least shut up. They publish the paper, Judd withdraws his name completely out of the blue. (Neither Heckman nor Uhlig ever even suggested this.)
    So what's the bottom line? Piazzesi seems to be the only one who behaved somewhat professionally (although even she bent over backwards to try and help the paper). Judd's behavior sounds borderline criminal, certainly totally crazy. Heckman and Uhlig were corrupt, but not in hurting anyone but in favoring an already priviledged HRM.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 4 Vlad !

17. Economist
    1222
    

    All bad rumors about Ken Judd originate in Minneapolis. He’s a hero. He’s loved at other schools doing computation: NWU, NYU, Stanford, Upenn, …

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 2 Vlad !

18. Economist
    1074
    

    This isn’t a rumor and he initiated it from Palo Alto himself.

    All bad rumors about Ken Judd originate in Minneapolis. He’s a hero. He’s loved at other schools doing computation: NWU, NYU, Stanford, Upenn, …

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

19. Economist
    1222
    

    This isn’t a rumor and he initiated it from Palo Alto himself.

    All bad rumors about Ken Judd originate in Minneapolis. He’s a hero. He’s loved at other schools doing computation: NWU, NYU, Stanford, Upenn, …
    

    I sad “bad”;rumors, dude. Try reading. Ken is a hero.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

20. Economist
    1074
    

    I’m just pointing out that this is about as bad as it gets, and it’s not a rumor. Why are you posting irrelevant information in this thread?

    This isn’t a rumor and he initiated it from Palo Alto himself.

    All bad rumors about Ken Judd originate in Minneapolis. He’s a hero. He’s loved at other schools doing computation: NWU, NYU, Stanford, Upenn, …
    

    I sad “bad”;rumors, dude. Try reading. Ken is a hero.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply »