As a side note: JJ has about 1/4 of the twitter followers that dozens of grad students with zero publications have. A reminder that publishing success and # of twitter followers doesn't correlate. Could be inversely related in many cases.
JJ chillypunks GG on Twitter
-
I'm of two minds. On the one hand, GG was misleading. It's kind of amusing to see him being all apologetic. I guess even he is worried about annoying our elders.
On the other hand: GG is absolutely right that editors have no freaking clue how to handle these short notes. I've seen so many times papers being shot down because they are evaluated like full papers. And I've yet to see editors discounting such criticism.
-
This is ridiculous. Mods, stop deleting posts that defend GG. Everyone in this discipline knows that JJ is kind of a prick and that GG was making a completely fair point about research notes. It was a valid thing to bring up on Twitter.
It's fine to bring it up. It's not fine to lie and grandstand about what happened to the paper. Pretty clear that the referee he cited wasn't pivotal for the outcome
-
If all GG wanted to do was raise a point about review standards for research notes (which IS an issue), he could have done so without naming the journal and without referring to (a sample) of the referee reports.
But in the real world GG wanted to raise a point about review standards for HIS specific research note submission the JOP.
-
This isn’t GG’s first time going public about his disdain with the review process. He and coauthors wrote a largely atheoretical paper about Israeli border wall effectiveness. It was rejected by a bunch of top journals and rightly so. He used his Twitter feed to cry about how the paper was actually great, wasn’t given a fair shot, and tried to make himself look like a hero because he tried and tried until it got published in QJPS.
-
Also: theory isn’t just about specifying a mechanism - which is what one causal inf person claimed to me. It’s about fleshing out your IV and DV conceptually, but in my mind, theory just as importantly involves situating your asserted causal relationship within a broader context; sometimes this means employing concepts to articulate scope conditions. I could go on about what theory actually entails, but it’s a whole lot more than what the causal inference-minded folks think.
-
thread summary:
GG is a whiny crybaby who dishonestly tried to pass off a baseless complaint about his own rejection as a comment on how the discipline treats short articles.
JJ DESTROYED GG.
thread assessment: no valid new points were raised after the accurate OP.
/
-
Guy Grossman is an insufferable and insecure creep. I know this from being acquainted with him in real life. Every one of my conversations with him has been dominated by:
1) GG talking about himself.
2) GG repeatedly dropping references to something he did or thinks that supposedly makes him a feminist, or least 'woke'.
3) GG dismissively trashing other scholars, and even people in his own department, for being either sexist or idiotic (or both).
4) GG expressing no real interest in anyone or anything other than himself.I have no fear that he knows I'm posting this because, as you can see, the several conversations I've had with him are pretty one-sided. And I know that this is consistent with other people's experiences with him as well.
-
This isn’t GG’s first time going public about his disdain with the review process. He and coauthors wrote a largely atheoretical paper about Israeli border wall effectiveness. It was rejected by a bunch of top journals and rightly so. He used his Twitter feed to cry about how the paper was actually great, wasn’t given a fair shot, and tried to make himself look like a hero because he tried and tried until it got published in QJPS.
Sounds like a political sciencist
-
can confirm
Guy Grossman is an insufferable and insecure creep. I know this from being acquainted with him in real life. Every one of my conversations with him has been dominated by:
1) GG talking about himself.
2) GG repeatedly dropping references to something he did or thinks that supposedly makes him a feminist, or least 'woke'.
3) GG dismissively trashing other scholars, and even people in his own department, for being either sexist or idiotic (or both).
4) GG expressing no real interest in anyone or anything other than himself.
I have no fear that he knows I'm posting this because, as you can see, the several conversations I've had with him are pretty one-sided. And I know that this is consistent with other people's experiences with him as well.