“or identification”? So if we have an atheoretical RCT then that isn’t reg monkey?
A good RCT shouldn't require much in the way of regression. We need a new term for atheoretical experiment monkeys a la DB.
ISQ Tennessee Team
-
There's a place for that, but can't you get some bigger thinkers to head a top journal in IA? Or at least a head who hits top 3s on a regular basis. Just weird ISQ ended up there. And KW should be embarrassed about complaining about summer work. Don't take the job if you want to take summer off.
No, they can’t find anyone better. All of the complaining here is misplaced. ISA needs to be the target, not the individuals providing the service.
-
The problem here is not KW or other mediocre scholars editing good journals. That's a symptom. The problem is that not enough first-rate scholars are interested in editing these journals because it's a thankless, s--t job.
You know how I know it's a thankless, s--t job? This thread. -
I don't know who Desch is. Regression monkeying is stats without clear theory or identification. Would prefer credible quant or big thinkers to they x y , reg robust crowd.
Michael Desch student detected
It's now a journal led by regression monkeys who have few big ideas. Evidence is KW cannot get books in top presses and BP doesn't even bother. There's a place for that, but can't you get some bigger thinkers to head a top journal in IA? Or at least a head who hits top 3s on a regular basis. Just weird ISQ ended up there. And KW should be embarrassed about complaining about summer work. Don't take the job if you want to take summer off.Point out an ISQ article that you think is an example of this.
-
There was another bid that was much, much more distinguished.
There's a place for that, but can't you get some bigger thinkers to head a top journal in IA? Or at least a head who hits top 3s on a regular basis. Just weird ISQ ended up there. And KW should be embarrassed about complaining about summer work. Don't take the job if you want to take summer off.
No, they can’t find anyone better. All of the complaining here is misplaced. ISA needs to be the target, not the individuals providing the service. -
Why didn't they go with that one then?
There was another bid that was much, much more distinguished.
There's a place for that, but can't you get some bigger thinkers to head a top journal in IA? Or at least a head who hits top 3s on a regular basis. Just weird ISQ ended up there. And KW should be embarrassed about complaining about summer work. Don't take the job if you want to take summer off.
No, they can’t find anyone better. All of the complaining here is misplaced. ISA needs to be the target, not the individuals providing the service. -
I wish more editors would do this. Way too much garbage gets sent out for review.
What did Nexon do?
he removed the impediment of peer review by desk rejecting 57% of submissions even if the ms. were not in an area he is expert in to make a judgement,Garbage, like, "Tom Clancy won the Cold War"? Because that's what was getting published under the last regime.
-
High rate of desk rejection would not be a problem, could be desirable, IF there were blind submissions. Are they doing anything about this? Should be relatively easy to implement, and would be much more fair, much less susceptible to implicit bias against unknown scholars (for example).