Is he still active in terms of producing new research papers?
Is it logical that my colleague is referring his new research paper?
Vernon Smith
-
Because several of my collogues received a request to referee this paper and the mail look suspicious for all of them. We are not sure if it is an experiment that we are going to waste our time, a real paper written by the the very old professor or a fraud.
This is an experiment they have sent the paper to many people.
He has probably agreed to participate in an expirement that X number of people get a review paper with 'Nobel Laureate Vernon Smith' and Y get 'Corresponding author: Ima N. O. Body'Then the reviews are more favorable for Vernon Smith. The whole 'experiment' is completely compromised by construction and a waste of reviewers time.
-
and this forum will help, right?!
Because several of my collogues received a request to referee this paper and the mail look suspicious for all of them. We are not sure if it is an experiment that we are going to waste our time, a real paper written by the the very old professor or a fraud.
-
is the paper good? why does it matter to you who wrote it?
Because several of my collogues received a request to referee this paper and the mail look suspicious for all of them. We are not sure if it is an experiment that we are going to waste our time, a real paper written by the the very old professor or a fraud.
-
is the paper good? why does it matter to you who wrote it?
Because several of my collogues received a request to referee this paper and the mail look suspicious for all of them. We are not sure if it is an experiment that we are going to waste our time, a real paper written by the the very old professor or a fraud.
Well Devil's advocate if someone has written a whole field and discusses it in a paper you will assume their application of that is correct as it is from the horse's mouth. If something looks a bit questionable in the discussion of their own work, you are going to assume it is correct versus getting a submission from another researcher. That is just common sense, it doesn't require an experiment wasting many reviewers time. If the person is 94 then maybe you would check everything because they may not be thinking as clearly as in their youth, but you might feel time pressure in that the submitter might die between review rounds if you are nit picking. If you are suspicious that it is an experiment, then again your reviewing behavior is going to be different which undermines the experiment.
-
Complete drivel? A mish-mash of 10 topics in finance / macro stitched together with no focus and a laughable model hidden somewhere at the end. I had no clue why it wasn’t desk rejected…until now
Oh I got that paper too, it was trash. Didn’t know it was an experiment, rejected it
Can you summarise your main issues with the paper to save a lot of people some time? :D
-
What I found very strange is that after submitting the report I got a questionnaire asking oh did you notice the name of the author? Did it influence you? The penny should have dropped right then, this is how an experiment looks like.
Second bite of the cherry for them in case the empirical results don't yield a good result they can use the questionnaire ones with the weaker result to force home their obvious prior. This is behavioral in a nutshell.
-
Complete drivel? A mish-mash of 10 topics in finance / macro stitched together with no focus and a laughable model hidden somewhere at the end. I had no clue why it wasn’t desk rejected…until now
Oh I got that paper too, it was trash. Didn’t know it was an experiment, rejected it
Can you summarise your main issues with the paper to save a lot of people some time? :D
How long did it take you to review?
-
Complete drivel? A mish-mash of 10 topics in finance / macro stitched together with no focus and a laughable model hidden somewhere at the end. I had no clue why it wasn’t desk rejected…until now
You've outed yourself now - the real experiment is on EJMR networks.....
We're watching you reviewer #127lol
-
If it is an experiment, maybe discussing it (including the paper and what people wrote into their reports) is not in the interest of science.
An alternative view is that it's such a poorly designed experiment that it is in the interest of science that more people don't waste their time participating and are free to accept genuine review requests.