He sounds like 90% of people in political science I know or have known. Seriously.
JJ chillypunks GG on Twitter
-
Maybe it sometimes takes an insufferable self-involved douche to call out a real problem. Refereeing of short papers at APSR/JOP is flawed.
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. -
Agreed about the larger point re review process. BUT...
-this wasn't exactly the best way to go about it given that the one review he conveniently forgot to mention recommended rejection *by finding significant flaws with the empirical model*. R2 may have been completely irrelevant to the decision to reject the paper.
-more broadly, this reeks of institutional privilege when a guy who admittedly is well networked and published gets 3 reviews at a top journal, 2 of which recommend outright rejection, and his instinct is to go in Twitter and rant that the editor should have nevertheless accepted the paper.
Listen, guy, unless we are talking about highly unusual circumstances, a 2/3 vote for rejection will ALWAYS lead to a rejection. Seriously. The rest of us just typically feel bad about ourselves and go back to work, and you think this was a travesty of some sort.
-
Yeah many people don’t get the benefit a third review unless two are good.
Agreed about the larger point re review process. BUT...
-this wasn't exactly the best way to go about it given that the one review he conveniently forgot to mention recommended rejection *by finding significant flaws with the empirical model*. R2 may have been completely irrelevant to the decision to reject the paper.
-more broadly, this reeks of institutional privilege when a guy who admittedly is well networked and published gets 3 reviews at a top journal, 2 of which recommend outright rejection, and his instinct is to go in Twitter and rant that the editor should have nevertheless accepted the paper.
Listen, guy, unless we are talking about highly unusual circumstances, a 2/3 vote for rejection will ALWAYS lead to a rejection. Seriously. The rest of us just typically feel bad about ourselves and go back to work, and you think this was a travesty of some sort. -
I'm surprised no one has pointed out that R2 didn't say he was rejecting the paper because it didn't have a theoretical contribution. Rather, he said that given that there was no theoretical contribution, the empirical contribution was too small. This is actually explicit that there doesn't need to be new theory, but then that the empirical value needs to be high.
-
I'm surprised no one has pointed out that R2 didn't say he was rejecting the paper because it didn't have a theoretical contribution. Rather, he said that given that there was no theoretical contribution, the empirical contribution was too small. This is actually explicit that there doesn't need to be new theory, but then that the empirical value needs to be high.
SG made the same point
-
Can someone tell GG we should have him post all three reviews in full plus editor letter for full transparency so we see exactly what was decided and why. He already linked to the paper in question which we all know deserves rejection, I'm sure his coauthors are happy about that, but with the full set of reviews itll be easier to see how much he's lying and full of you know what...
-
Some in the discipline just have this ridiculous sense of entitlement and privilege and think that the because they've "made it" -- or because they're at a prestigious institution -- that the rules of peer review somehow don't apply to them. When their papers get accepted, it's all because of their infinite talent and wisdom, but when the papers are rejected, it's because of flaws in the peer review process.