Close

Complete Captcha

• 5 years - 32 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 84 Goods vs 27 No Goods

1. Economist
   27da
   

   My last month's refereeing.

   1) recommended rejection in a top-5 of a paper of an editor in another top-5 that rejected my paper is his top-5 journal a couple of years ago. was the pivotal referee, explicitly cited in the editor's rejection letter.

   2) recommended rejection in a top-5 of a paper by another editor in a top-5 that wrote a paper that challenges my paper published in the top-5 by the same editor.

   3) recommended R&R in a top-5 of a paper by a third editor in a top-5 that is currently handling one of my own R&Rs in a top-5.

   4) tomorrow i will be recommending acceptance of a paper by an editor in a top-5 where I soon plan to submit a paper.

   5) recommended rejection of a paper by a former colleague in a top-5 journal. colleague did not make a case for me to get a raise and I had to leave.

   6) recommended acceptance of paper by former colleague and editor in a top-5 who hired me in my current job.

   7) recommended rejection of a paper in a top-5 by a former top-5 editor who has accepted my papers but did not make them lead article when by ex-post citation metrics they should have been (revealing bad forecasting ability).

   8) recommended R&R of a paper in a top-5 by a letter writer for a major award.

   9) next week, I will be recommending rejection of a paper in a top-5 written by someone who blocked my offer in a top-5 b-school.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 4 Good 3 No Good !

2. Economist
   a7e3
   

   ^ fake news

   2 years ago # QUOTE 3 Good 0 No Good !

3. Economist
   b1ec
   

   This is brilliant. Why no love for this?

   Let's face it, there's little incentive to referee well. The editor is way too busy to much care about most reviews.
   The first thing that I do is search for the working paper, so I can determine who the authors are. Then, I use the table of contents from an econometrics book to point out problems or I criticize the paper for not asking the right question, not making enough of a contribution to the literature, etc.
   I never really look at a paper substantively unless I'm sufficiently interested to read to learn something new. If it were that good, wouldn't it be published already?

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

4. Economist
   4afa
   

   Bump.

   To counter this disgusting "I'm such a good reviewer, I'm an asset to the profession" thread

   2 years ago # QUOTE 2 Good 0 No Good !

5. Economist
   4afa
   

   Hey bros, OP here. Guess what. Despite it being GORGEOUS outside, I decided to make this afternoon a minor refereeing day. Four papers only, but one is more than six months old. I had a few glasses of wine for lunch so my reviews could be a bit incoherent.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

6. Economist
   0e54
   

   This thread is nightmare material. Do your dang job, you lazy referees

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

7. Economist
   33f8
   

   Underrated thread

   1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Good 0 No Good !

8. Economist
   b1c4
   

   This thread is nightmare material. Do your dang job, you lazy referees

   Calling refereeing a job implies that I am compensated for doing this. Generally that is not the case.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

9. Economist
   8d16
   

   My last month's refereeing.
   1) recommended rejection in a top-5 of a paper of an editor in another top-5 that rejected my paper is his top-5 journal a couple of years ago. was the pivotal referee, explicitly cited in the editor's rejection letter.
   2) recommended rejection in a top-5 of a paper by another editor in a top-5 that wrote a paper that challenges my paper published in the top-5 by the same editor.
   3) recommended R&R in a top-5 of a paper by a third editor in a top-5 that is currently handling one of my own R&Rs in a top-5.
   4) tomorrow i will be recommending acceptance of a paper by an editor in a top-5 where I soon plan to submit a paper.
   5) recommended rejection of a paper by a former colleague in a top-5 journal. colleague did not make a case for me to get a raise and I had to leave.
   6) recommended acceptance of paper by former colleague and editor in a top-5 who hired me in my current job.
   7) recommended rejection of a paper in a top-5 by a former top-5 editor who has accepted my papers but did not make them lead article when by ex-post citation metrics they should have been (revealing bad forecasting ability).
   8) recommended R&R of a paper in a top-5 by a letter writer for a major award.
   9) next week, I will be recommending rejection of a paper in a top-5 written by someone who blocked my offer in a top-5 b-school.

   ^ fake news

   although it is fake it does sound like what really happens in academic refereeing process.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 3 Good 0 No Good !

10. Economist
    4a0b
    

    I spent on 5-7 days if the paper is good. Seriously. I think I am a better quality human being than you.

    I make around 5 journal submissions/year. I think that's pretty close to the median for econ researchers). The number of co-authors on most papers (1-3) is roughly equal to the number of referees on a paper. So that means that on average, we need to referee around 5 papers/year. Many people don't referee (editors, deans, PhD students, oldies, free-riders), and the distribution is pretty skewed. As a result, many of us get easily 10 papers to referee each year. 5-7 days for each paper is simply not viable. Don't spend more than a day on a referee report. You can of course spend a few hours, put it away, and again a few hours some days later. But never more than 8 hours in total on one paper.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

11. Economist
    9ba1
    

    OP makes me sick to my stomach.

    only because you know it's true

    9 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

12. Economist
    62c4
    

    Oh what a day, what a lovely day!

    9 months ago # QUOTE 1 Good 0 No Good !

Reply

Post <blockquote>OP makes me sick to my stomach.</blockquote>

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.