Trolls essentially exist because people want to feel special. Voting good on a thread with 60+ no goods is the most trollish thing you can do.
It's the same reason people listen to Kid A.
Who the f**k GOODed the OP? OP and OP's adviser?
ed43, Um, just exactly why is that? Are you implying that all the people criticizing OP do not have papers accepted at journals with such rave reviews by refs that they might think they could have pubbed them at higher ranked journals? Sorry, not the case, dingleberry. Your remark is nearly as stupid as OP's original post, but that really cannot be topped, one of the stupidest posts of all time here.
Dear OP, I once had a dilemma like yours, and this is what I did:
I sent a paper to the AER and within 3 hours the editor got back to me saying that since my paper would change the way we think about economics forever, he would publish it as is (even with the typos), in the next issue of the AEA. Also, it would be only article in that issue, which you might know has never happened before in any journal.
At that point, I realized that my paper was so good that the economics profession did not deserve it - so I withdrew it, over the desperate pleas of the editor. The editor, who was the only person to have ever read my paper, subsequently had to go into therapy for acute depression, as he could not stop thinking about my paper (you might know of this event, but not the cause).
OP = Harvard PhD
Journal = QJE
I am in a dilemma. My paper has been accepted by a good journal but all the 4 referee reports are so positive and full of praise of the paper that I am seriously considering withdrawing it from the journal that accepted it and sending to an even better journal. Any suggestions?
ed43, Are you addressing this to every person posting here? Sorry, not all commenting are lrms, and at least some of us have had OP's experience, but were never so ****ing stupid and unprofessional as to pull what he has suggested. You are so far out to lunch, they are cleaning up the plates from dinner now.