Judd now explaining the saga in a new blogpost at https://showmethemath.org/
Heckman seems to have been the editor in question; not clear who the "former editor" was though (whose work Judd wanted to criticize)
pgp tweeted about it
Ken Judd removed name from JPE article as otherwise it reduced its chance
-
Story:
KJ does not want to do some minor-to-do but important things asked by the referees, tells the referees that they have poor judgement. Pisses everyone off with attitude. Editor points out that without these changes the paper won't get published. KJ says then remove my name, the co-authors do the changes, and get a chance to publish the paper.
I do not see any wrong-doing by JPE.Sounds made up. The coauthor could have these petty changes anyway, why remove his name?
It is the actual story. KJ can communicate his objections in the response letters and through communication with the editor. The editor lets him know that with an "I know everything better than those idi_ots" attitude, the paper will not go very far. He gets offended, as the seniors who think they invented and muust rule the field often do.
His co-authors make the change, not HIM. It is not him giving up on his principles at the end. It is not a matter of laziness and not wanting to do. I think you do not understand the problem here.
-
Judd now explaining the saga in a new blogpost at https://showmethemath.org/
Heckman seems to have been the editor in question; not clear who the "former editor" was though (whose work Judd wanted to criticize)pgp tweeted about it
A very one-sided reflection.
Do others get a chance to email the editor and complain when your paper is rejected at JPE? Does it ever work if you are not KJ?
But also good for him to go public with his criticisms of editors. Few would do.
Heckman is long gone out of power and won't be remembered fondly by the profession. But the younger people will need to think twice before they set the rule of the land.
-
I read his blogpost. He posted a link documenting his communications with the rest of the people mentioned by name: https://sites.google.com/d/1OL6zKt5HgLWgqwoINKWTNr_WyNXRvqJW/p/15UoIQLxlzFb
but I can't access it because it's only accessible to users who've been granted permission -
Sorry to say but KJ comes out as a total Karen in this. Literally complains to the managers (JJH and LPH) to get his paper in. Imagine if some LRM did this. JJH comes out well in this actually. He's pleading with Ken, begging him, to hold it in until the paper is published. But no, Karen needs to have her hissy fit.
-
I read his blogpost. He posted a link documenting his communications with the rest of the people mentioned by name: https://sites.google.com/d/1OL6zKt5HgLWgqwoINKWTNr_WyNXRvqJW/p/15UoIQLxlzFb
but I can't access it because it's only accessible to users who've been granted permissionThanks for the information. Try again.
-
Judd now explaining the saga in a new blogpost at https://showmethemath.org/
Heckman seems to have been the editor in question; not clear who the "former editor" was though (whose work Judd wanted to criticize)pgp tweeted about it
A very one-sided reflection.
Do others get a chance to email the editor and complain when your paper is rejected at JPE? Does it ever work if you are not KJ?
But also good for him to go public with his criticisms of editors. Few would do.
Heckman is long gone out of power and won't be remembered fondly by the profession. But the younger people will need to think twice before they set the rule of the land.I tell all my students that they should not say what I say or do what I do until they are in my situation. Of course this would never work for almost anyone else. Fighting tyranny is always costly but it is necessary. My costs are less than other people's costs, so I fight.
-
This is a pretty epic rant considering it is about a paper getting *accepted and published* by the JPE despite an initial rejection and 7 (I think? The #s are a little confusing) negative referee reports out of 10 over two submissions.
I have had a paper rejected there with 3/4 positive reports (granted I didn't see the private comments to the editor of course), I would like to see what kind of fit KJ would throw in those circumstances.
-
The scariest part for me was the referees' comments. Of course KJ must have picked the worst of them, but this is the JPE. The whole process is too arbitrary and distorted.
UC Press asked me to limit my posting of the referee reports because that may discourage referees from reviewing papers. You can see this in the documentation website. I found this to be a reasonable request because referees often make both stupid comments along with constructive criticism. It is the job of the editor to find the serious comments. I cited referee comments that the editor embraced and used in their decision.