Wouldn’t call it veiled.
Those emails are comedy gold. I cracked up multiple times reading them. The contrast of KJ's verbose rants with JJH's emails in the style of EE Cummings is just too good.
Anyway, KJ comes away looking worse. And am I wrong or did he make a veiled threat about MP and HU's students?
The whole thing is disgraceful. I don't have sympathy for either side here. I'm tenured at a MRM/LRM place, so I can continue to sip my pina colada, but this kind of stuff should make us think about setting tenure expectations. What I am supposed to infer when a junior colleague of mine gets an JPE or a QJE given how corrupt the whole thing is? And should I really discount the ability of those who don't play well with this crazy set of rules?
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 am too old to understand the jargon of young people. So, I contacted a friend of mine named Karen who is significantly younger than me. She told me to embrace the label. She enjoys watching people shake when she places an order and gives her name, and she says she gets "white glove service."
How do you know this would not work for a ? (what is an LRM)? I threw a fit because JPE rejected the paper for ridiculous reasons. I know that I am not the only person who has had that experience. Perhaps Heckman invited the resubmission because he did not want those reasons to appear to be official JPE policy. Perhaps he would have responded to a LRM(??) who made the same arguments.
Don't knock it until you have tried it.
Any shred of sympathy I might have had for Judd vanished when with the passage beginning "I can also play this hostage game," threatening the *students* of the editors with whom he's in conflict as retaliation for perceived injustices.
Let's be clear on what happened. Heckman took my students hostage. I was unhappy. I pointed out that I could also take other students hostage. However, I never took any student hostage.
Remember the movie Untouchables: "You wanna get Capone? Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way."
The South Side of Chicago is a rough neighborhood. One needs to follow a policy of strategic ambiguity. I also learned this from a Myerson paper.
Are you for real? My paper got rejected for ridiculous reasons (as in a ref asks why we didn’t do X after we explicitly had done X). I am a grad student. Do you think I can whine to the editor? I’d get laughed out of there.
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 am too old to understand the jargon of young people. So, I contacted a friend of mine named Karen who is significantly younger than me. She told me to embrace the label. She enjoys watching people shake when she places an order and gives her name, and she says she gets "white glove service."
How do you know this would not work for a ? (what is an LRM)? I threw a fit because JPE rejected the paper for ridiculous reasons. I know that I am not the only person who has had that experience. Perhaps Heckman invited the resubmission because he did not want those reasons to appear to be official JPE policy. Perhaps he would have responded to a LRM(??) who made the same arguments.
Don't knock it until you have tried it.
Are you for real? My paper got rejected for ridiculous reasons (as in a ref asks why we didn’t do X after we explicitly had done X). I am a grad student. Do you think I can whine to the editor? I’d get laughed out of there.
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 am too old to understand the jargon of young people. So, I contacted a friend of mine named Karen who is significantly younger than me. She told me to embrace the label. She enjoys watching people shake when she places an order and gives her name, and she says she gets "white glove service."
How do you know this would not work for a ? (what is an LRM)? I threw a fit because JPE rejected the paper for ridiculous reasons. I know that I am not the only person who has had that experience. Perhaps Heckman invited the resubmission because he did not want those reasons to appear to be official JPE policy. Perhaps he would have responded to a LRM(??) who made the same arguments.
Don't knock it until you have tried it.
Grow a spine and shoot that email.
Let me tell you a story. Not as high as JPE, only JPub Econ. Referee rejected paper in a short review by stating that my paper misstated the relevance of the contribution and I had ignored the literature (to the extent of implying that I had willfully done that) and misstated the literature. I, an LRM, could not let that pass (I had not ignored the literature, I clearly stated that my paper considered an environment where a feature seen in the literature was being used in a novel way, and in a novel context). The editor rejected, making the referee's observation the centerpiece of the rejection, including the assertion that I had misstated the literature. I wrote back to the editor (I couldn't let the implied accusation pass) saying that I had not ignored or misstated the literature to the best of my knowledge, and had the referee indicated any specific paper(s) I had ignored or misstated (I took the misstated bit very seriously), and if s/he had not could the editor ask for those references so that I would be able to educate myself and not further commit the stated mistake. The editor replied that no evidence had been provided by the referee, it would not be possible to pursue a response from the referee (in his words a senior scholar), and very sweetly wishing me the best of luck in submitting the paper elsewhere. I kind of know who the senior scholar is, since the paper qualified a result of his (he states it at a level of generality which is not true, it needs to be qualified). In any case, I, a poor LRM, went my way. KJ needs to educate himself to the lot of the masses - no, we cannot eat cake!!
Are you for real? My paper got rejected for ridiculous reasons (as in a ref asks why we didn’t do X after we explicitly had done X). I am a grad student. Do you think I can whine to the editor? I’d get laughed out of there.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 am too old to understand the jargon of young people. So, I contacted a friend of mine named Karen who is significantly younger than me. She told me to embrace the label. She enjoys watching people shake when she places an order and gives her name, and she says she gets "white glove service."
How do you know this would not work for a ? (what is an LRM)? I threw a fit because JPE rejected the paper for ridiculous reasons. I know that I am not the only person who has had that experience. Perhaps Heckman invited the resubmission because he did not want those reasons to appear to be official JPE policy. Perhaps he would have responded to a LRM(??) who made the same arguments.
Don't knock it until you have tried it.
Grow a spine and shoot that email.
Are you for real? My paper got rejected for ridiculous reasons (as in a ref asks why we didn’t do X after we explicitly had done X). I am a grad student. Do you think I can whine to the editor? I’d get laughed out of there.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 am too old to understand the jargon of young people. So, I contacted a friend of mine named Karen who is significantly younger than me. She told me to embrace the label. She enjoys watching people shake when she places an order and gives her name, and she says she gets "white glove service."
How do you know this would not work for a ? (what is an LRM)? I threw a fit because JPE rejected the paper for ridiculous reasons. I know that I am not the only person who has had that experience. Perhaps Heckman invited the resubmission because he did not want those reasons to appear to be official JPE policy. Perhaps he would have responded to a LRM(??) who made the same arguments.
Don't knock it until you have tried it.
Grow a spine and shoot that email.
Some people who have a spine contact the editor who handled the paper to appeal a stupid decision (usually ignored). But I don't think anybody has a spine to email Heckman, who was not even in an official position to handle the appeal. The only reason Heckman took him seriously is that they were friends, which is what we call "clubiness" or "corruption" at top journals.
Some people who have a spine contact the editor who handled the paper to appeal a stupid decision (usually ignored). But I don't think anybody has a spine to email Heckman, who was not even in an official position to handle the appeal. The only reason Heckman took him seriously is that they were friends, which is what we call "clubiness" or "corruption" at top journals.
The webpage https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/jpe/past-editors reports that Heckman was a Co-Editor from 2011-2021. I call that an "official position." Heckman and I are not "friends". I am not in any club, and I am definitely outside the Chicago club. As you will see in the future, Chicago actually has been trying to kill my computational economics research efforts.
Let me tell you a story. Not as high as JPE, only JPub Econ. Referee rejected paper in a short review by stating that my paper misstated the relevance of the contribution and I had ignored the literature (to the extent of implying that I had willfully done that) and misstated the literature. I, an LRM, could not let that pass (I had not ignored the literature, I clearly stated that my paper considered an environment where a feature seen in the literature was being used in a novel way, and in a novel context). The editor rejected, making the referee's observation the centerpiece of the rejection, including the assertion that I had misstated the literature. I wrote back to the editor (I couldn't let the implied accusation pass) saying that I had not ignored or misstated the literature to the best of my knowledge, and had the referee indicated any specific paper(s) I had ignored or misstated (I took the misstated bit very seriously), and if s/he had not could the editor ask for those references so that I would be able to educate myself and not further commit the stated mistake. The editor replied that no evidence had been provided by the referee, it would not be possible to pursue a response from the referee (in his words a senior scholar), and very sweetly wishing me the best of luck in submitting the paper elsewhere. I kind of know who the senior scholar is, since the paper qualified a result of his (he states it at a level of generality which is not true, it needs to be qualified). In any case, I, a poor LRM, went my way. KJ needs to educate himself to the lot of the masses - no, we cannot eat cake!!
I had even worse things happen to me in the 1980's! Including retaliation! At that time I would have supported people who fought the corruption. I am now in a position to at least expose the corruption. I have information that shows how bad journal editing is. If I wanted to support the system, I would remain silent and settle for whatever I could get. I want the system to change so I am not silent. Do you have any better ideas for how to reform the system?
Kenn, you can place what you want to quote between <b1ockquote> and </b1ockquote> (replacing "l" with "1" so that my comment itself won't be blockquated).
I don't think a co-editor is in a position to handle the appeal and to overrun the decision made by another co-editor. I'm not sure if even a lead editor is granted such authority. That is exactly the reason why Heckman treated it as a new submission, which may be technically allowed but is definitely shady. I don't think he would have taken such a risk for a complete nobody.
Kenn, you can place what you want to quote between <b1ockquote> and </b1ockquote> (replacing "l" with "1" so that my comment itself won't be blockquated).
I don't think a co-editor is in a position to handle the appeal and to overrun the decision made by another co-editor. I'm not sure if even a lead editor is granted such authority. That is exactly the reason why Heckman treated it as a new submission, which may be technically allowed but is definitely shady. I don't think he would have taken such a risk for a complete nobody.
Exactly. It is not standard protocol.
And it is even Heckman we are talking about.
I appreciate your graciousness in at least engaging in a conversation. Usually plebs are ignored, without recourse. If you would like to institute reform, here is an idea - why don't you found a general interest journal (not just computational, most of us work in other areas), along with some other honest folks, tying up with a respectable publishing house. And at least treat everyone, irrespective of affiliation, honestly, respectfully, and helpfully in the publication process. Your contribution to the profession would be huge that way. I don't know whether at this stage of your career publishing a few more papers (of course, please do also continue that as your passion dictates) is more beneficial to the profession, or what I am suggesting.
Let me tell you a story. Not as high as JPE, only JPub Econ. Referee rejected paper in a short review by stating that my paper misstated the relevance of the contribution and I had ignored the literature (to the extent of implying that I had willfully done that) and misstated the literature. I, an LRM, could not let that pass (I had not ignored the literature, I clearly stated that my paper considered an environment where a feature seen in the literature was being used in a novel way, and in a novel context). The editor rejected, making the referee's observation the centerpiece of the rejection, including the assertion that I had misstated the literature. I wrote back to the editor (I couldn't let the implied accusation pass) saying that I had not ignored or misstated the literature to the best of my knowledge, and had the referee indicated any specific paper(s) I had ignored or misstated (I took the misstated bit very seriously), and if s/he had not could the editor ask for those references so that I would be able to educate myself and not further commit the stated mistake. The editor replied that no evidence had been provided by the referee, it would not be possible to pursue a response from the referee (in his words a senior scholar), and very sweetly wishing me the best of luck in submitting the paper elsewhere. I kind of know who the senior scholar is, since the paper qualified a result of his (he states it at a level of generality which is not true, it needs to be qualified). In any case, I, a poor LRM, went my way. KJ needs to educate himself to the lot of the masses - no, we cannot eat cake!!I had even worse things happen to me in the 1980's! Including retaliation! At that time I would have supported people who fought the corruption. I am now in a position to at least expose the corruption. I have information that shows how bad journal editing is. If I wanted to support the system, I would remain silent and settle for whatever I could get. I want the system to change so I am not silent. Do you have any better ideas for how to reform the system?
Adding to my above post, I would also suggest another step in the process. Authors can respond with a memo to a rejection, which the editor would read honestly and either continue with the rejection or reverse with a revise and resubmit (if rejected again, this would be the final step). I know this would increase workload, and probably the journal would be able to handle less submissions, and probably the co-editors would have to be honest, label-neutral, civic-minded senior scholars at a late stage of their careers (so not need to perhaps put in as much time into their own agenda), but this would be a good step towards changing the publication process positively. Just saying, as you asked for suggestions.
Kenn, you can place what you want to quote between <b1ockquote> and </b1ockquote> (replacing "l" with "1" so that my comment itself won't be blockquated).<br style="-webkit-user-select: auto;">
I don't think a co-editor is in a position to handle the appeal and to overrun the decision made by another co-editor. I'm not sure if even a lead editor is granted such authority. That is exactly the reason why Heckman treated it as a new submission, which may be technically allowed but is definitely shady. I don't think he would have taken such a risk for a complete nobody.
I used to be a co-editor at RAND. There was a case once where two papers were submitted, one was rejected and one was accepted, but the central result was the same. Both co-editor and all the referees did a good job at evaluating the papers, but they came to different conclusions. When this was brought to my attention, I initiated discussions with the co-editors involved in this plus the managing editor. I think all the authors were junior. All agreed that this was independent research. Even though both co-editors acted reasonably, we agreed that RAND was obligated to see to it that the papers were treated consistently. We also did not suggest that the papers be merged since that would dilute the value of the publication for the junior authors. Therefore, we published both papers. There was no argument about any of this. It was considered the obvious thing to do. Nothing shady about this.