Ken Judd removed name from JPE article as otherwise it reduced its chance

1 year - 100 posts - Latest - RSS
Thread: 338 Goods vs 77 No Goods

Economics Job Market Rumors » Economics » Economics Discussion

Ken Judd removed name from JPE article as otherwise it reduced its chance

KenJudd
Rep: 29

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.

There are no "standard protocols" in economics journals. I had an Econometrica co-editor tell me that he had discussed the submission with TWO OTHER CO-EDITORS and he wanted a revision. I know of at least one other paper where three editors were involved in the decisions. I also know of at least one case where an author was pressured by three co-editors to merge his paper with another submission. I know of two other cases where authors were "pressured" to merge their papers. These are all the details I can give you now.

In economics, there are no rules, only rulers.

1 year ago # QUOTE 7 Volod 5 Vlad !
Economist
4928

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.

There are no "standard protocols" in economics journals. I had an Econometrica co-editor tell me that he had discussed the submission with TWO OTHER CO-EDITORS and he wanted a revision. I know of at least one other paper where three editors were involved in the decisions. I also know of at least one case where an author was pressured by three co-editors to merge his paper with another submission. I know of two other cases where authors were "pressured" to merge their papers. These are all the details I can give you now.
In economics, there are no rules, only rulers.

^Yet more examples of the undue privileges that people like Judd enjoy... The entire idea of writing to an editor to then get a near-unanimous rejection-advice from referees overturned is so alien to me, that the story stops there in my mind

1 year ago # QUOTE 14 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
4f4c

In economics, there are no rules, only rulers.

I'm sorry, Prof Judd, but this is rather tone deaf especially given the context.

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 2 Vlad !
Economist
5dbb

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.

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.

You did an awesome job as a co-editor, but the contexts of the two episodes are completely different.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
7c01

Everyone knows JPE is a club journal basically

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
0d1b

I agree with you, Ken. You were treated unfairly. Perhaps you indeed received some unfairly unfavorable treatment for certain aspects of this unfolded.

But it seems pretty clear (as many have noted) that you also received *more* unfairly favorable treatment.

On net, you appeared to unfairly benefit in a way that almost every other professor in our profession cannot. That's unfair to the rest of us. It's too bad you don't seem to see that.

Tangentially, it also seems (to me, at least) unethical for you to have removed yourself as a coauthor from a paper in which you deserved coauthorship. There are rules/norms for what does and doesn't merit coauthorship.

The likelihood that JH and HU also acted unethically as editors (in granting you special favorable treatment, perhaps with strings attached, and allowing you to remove your name as coauthor when you're required to be a coauthor) doesn't condone what you've done here.

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
299f

Judd no Law

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
95de

I think Judd needs a course in concise writing; he could have simply written the following:

"are you making the editorial decision dependent on anything other than the merit of the paper? please clarify"

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
KenJudd
Rep: 29

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.

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.

You did an awesome job as a co-editor, but the contexts of the two episodes are completely different.

This example shows that in some cases multiple co-editors are involved in decisions. In the RAND J case, a rejection by a co-editor was reversed as a result of discussions among the co-editors. This is a counterexample to your proposition that co-Editors cannot overrule decisions by fell co-Editors.
This is all irrelevant. I accepted that Heckman treated the paper as a new submission. My only criticism is his statement that the decision on the paper would depend on things I would say elsewhere.

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 3 Vlad !
KenJudd
Rep: 29

I think Judd needs a course in concise writing; he could have simply written the following:
"are you making the editorial decision dependent on anything other than the merit of the paper? please clarify"

What I wrote was logically equivalent to your proposed request for clarification and Heckman clearly understood that. You apparently have not had to deal with Heckman. If you had you would know that requests like "Please, Prof. Heckman, clarify what you have said" don't work.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 1 Vlad !
Economist
cde8

Have you all never submitted to top journals before? It’s standard, for example, at AER to consult another co-editor when an editor is on the fence.

It is totally normal to involve other editors.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 4 Vlad !
Economist
dd0f

Have you all never submitted to top journals before? It’s standard, for example, at AER to consult another co-editor when an editor is on the fence.
It is totally normal to involve other editors.

I had such an experience on my own, but that's totally different from this case. Judging from the email correspondence, Heckman was not involved in the initial decision at all. If it had been the editor herself who had consulted Heckman, it would have been a standard editorial practice. However, it's Kenn Judd who complained to Heckman and demanded that he should "exercise autonomy" and handle it in a "competent review process". I have no idea why you describe it as "normal".

1 year ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 1 Vlad !
Economist
c5b7

https://twitter.com/Bellmanequation/status/1483159044277866509
https://showmethemath.org/2022/01/dsice-dynamic-stochastic-integration-of-climate-and-economy/

I wish I had all referees recommending rejection, and Heckman saying that he will publish the paper any way as long as I don’t make a stink.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
b76d

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/01/25/how-do-things-work-at-top-econ-journals-exactly-this-is-one-weird-ass-story/

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
1f20

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.

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.

You did an awesome job as a co-editor, but the contexts of the two episodes are completely different.

This example shows that in some cases multiple co-editors are involved in decisions. In the RAND J case, a rejection by a co-editor was reversed as a result of discussions among the co-editors. This is a counterexample to your proposition that co-Editors cannot overrule decisions by fell co-Editors.
This is all irrelevant. I accepted that Heckman treated the paper as a new submission. My only criticism is his statement that the decision on the paper would depend on things I would say elsewhere.

Catch more flies with honey, honey.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
9f0e

Have you all never submitted to top journals before? It’s standard, for example, at AER to consult another co-editor when an editor is on the fence.
It is totally normal to involve other editors.

Not just on fence . Duflo made that rule .

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
5163

One thing that's being ignored here, whether or not Judd or Heckman acted improperly, is that the kind of computational GE macro modeling that Judd does is extremely important and extremely undervalued.

The fact that the paper got negative reviews just shows how under-rated this research agenda is, and does not have anything to do with the very quality and high impact paper.

What would solve the proximate problem would be for there to be a top 5 journal that takes CGE seriously, so that backdoors don't have to be used to get this work published.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 4 Vlad !
Economist
cf06

One thing that's being ignored here, whether or not Judd or Heckman acted improperly, is that the kind of computational GE macro modeling that Judd does is extremely important and extremely undervalued.
The fact that the paper got negative reviews just shows how under-rated this research agenda is, and does not have anything to do with the very quality and high impact paper.
What would solve the proximate problem would be for there to be a top 5 journal that takes CGE seriously, so that backdoors don't have to be used to get this work published.

Whatever you say, Ken Judd lmfao

5 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
63a8

Ken would never post anonymously. The man loves (verbal) combat.

5 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
016c

One thing that's being ignored here, whether or not Judd or Heckman acted improperly, is that the kind of computational GE macro modeling that Judd does is extremely important and extremely undervalued.
The fact that the paper got negative reviews just shows how under-rated this research agenda is, and does not have anything to do with the very quality and high impact paper.
What would solve the proximate problem would be for there to be a top 5 journal that takes CGE seriously, so that backdoors don't have to be used to get this work published.

How is it undervalued? This is a very mainstream macro approach.

5 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

« Previous 1…45

Recently Announced

Upcoming

Economics

Job Market

Off Topic

Math

Job Market Wiki

Job Market Candidates

Updates

Ken Judd removed name from JPE article as otherwise it reduced its chance

Reply