what are top four field journals?? rand is the only top field journal in io
Naturally RAND is the top field, I mean top as in "the four best", so Rand, JIE, IJIO, RIO (JEMS is nice, but that is not as strictly IO). Anyway, I just meant to say one of those four, not start discussing about quality. I know there are many good (or better) journals that publish IO stuff.
If PS were not a junior or had powerful people standing up for him, do you think he could have done what he did without consequences?
As an ae of on of the (top) four field journals I see it like this. I only knew HS, his statement has increased my favourable perception of him. I now know that OT wrote a nice paper, I know that SS implicitly agreed with PS's maffia strategy, and I know that PS engaged in disgusting behaviour. I think the only person that this will significantly affect is PS, as the evidence out there makes him look very bad, he is still quite junior, and despite being at LSE, he doesn't seem to be doing well enough to have powerful people willing to stand up for him.
If he would have been a rising star in IO (possibly with tenure), what is to come now would have been a lot easier to endure.
what are top four field journals?? rand is the only top field journal in ioNaturally RAND is the top field, I mean top as in "the four best", so Rand, JIE, IJIO, RIO (JEMS is nice, but that is not as strictly IO). Anyway, I just meant to say one of those four, not start discussing about quality. I know there are many good (or better) journals that publish IO stuff.
So you‘re ae at rio, otherwise you would‘ve said top 3 ;)
Looks like HS posted a statement on the dispute on his website: https://sites.google.com/site/howardwilliamsmith/publications-1
direct link here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oad2I-a1SuKesWp0iu84zVuX1CKhuEo2/view
Stephan Seiler's public statement along with some supporting docs:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1AhzyKNJzS0vTOTpYZIN8iZPvkUjUKDwQ?usp=sharingtl;dr!
The tl;dr is "this is all HS's fault." The relevant passage:
"In summary, at the time we start talking about authorship in 2015, the models of ST and SSS appear to have influenced each other strongly. In my mind, SSS has influenced ST more significantly due to the reasons outlined above, but certainly there was spillover in the other direction as well (e.g. quadratic utility). However, to the best of my recollection this was never explicit. After the conversation in 2011, I do not recollect ever hearing or talking about ST with my co-authors until it comes up again in 2015. I can only assume that the same is true for OT on the ST project, who may not have been aware of the degree of influence that SSS had on ST."
If his account is true, the threading email is not inappropriate.
His position is that the guy took his model without attribution. If someone does that, the threat that PS made is not inappropriate.
mentions the threatening email as a little innocent attempt to convince OT for co-authorship. Such an a**hole.