Sympathetize with Philip Jefferson, who appears eminently qualified (not that I'd know--not a macroeconomist) but is getting his name dragged in all thisIs he really getting dragged down? I think he will skate through because he looks so good in comparison.
See what you mean, but the article even mentions him before her
Google Scholar automatically registers papers at first, and the author is supposed to add and remove papers manually, right? It's hard to tell whether she kept those articles intentionally or she just slacked off.
Anyway, it doesn't matter whether her citation count is 700 or 1,000. Most of her academic work are not taken seriously by economists, which is evident from where they were published.
Lol at anyone who thinks Peter Navarro is a serious economist. His main qualification is that he is more than willing to lie for Trump.
And of course Republicans thought Peter Diamond wasn't qualified. If he is within the GOP's unqualified category, then a few citations here and there don't matter.
Google Scholar automatically registers papers at first, and the author is supposed to add and remove papers manually, right? It's hard to tell whether she kept those articles intentionally or she just slacked off.
Anyway, it doesn't matter whether her citation count is 700 or 1,000. Most of her academic work are not taken seriously by economists, which is evident from where they were published.
I'm pretty sure she changed her research interests in the past few years, so she is at least somewhat active on Google scholar.
The one paper in question is over 10 years old, and one of her most cited papers. She is not an author of that paper, it is sole authored. She is just thanked in the acknowledgements, apparently for writing a supporting report or something. It is strange that this is on her profile. It either got auto-added and then not deleted, or she may have added the paper.
You can also choose whether GS auto-adds papers for you. It's generally not a good idea to do that.
There is the listing an aer p and p in a list of peer reviewed publications issue.
Hey man, it’s bad enough without it being fraud. Calling it fraud is a lazy way out- and the case for incompetence is easy. She’s just not qualified. She occasionally publishes papers that are free of insight in low tier journals. Her proper station in life is a lecturer at some juco. That’s enough! No need to throw fraud allegations out there.
We all know she's nominated because of her melanin. All arguments to show her incompetence are pointless.It not so much about incompetence, it is about open fraud and lack of integrity.
Would you trust your own money to a fraudster?