tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1534812907620779881.post7716275631295750963..comments2023-11-24T03:33:55.979-05:00Comments on ECONJEFF: Peer review follieseconjeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15500904082539595860noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1534812907620779881.post-4570978293115065142013-05-27T10:08:14.380-04:002013-05-27T10:08:14.380-04:00The problem with this study is that there are two ...The problem with this study is that there are two things going on. The first is that the journal is taking a new draw from the distribution of referees. As everyone who has been a part of the journal process knows, referees do not always agree, though my experience is that they are definitely positively correlated. One could, with some assumptions, try to back out a correlation from the data in this study. The other thing that is going on is that they are changing the authors to people the referees will not have heard of at places they will not have heard of. That is quite a different treatment than just taking a new draw. I suspect that is where most of the treatment effect is coming from.econjeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15500904082539595860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1534812907620779881.post-61996307991121777482013-05-26T22:01:05.065-04:002013-05-26T22:01:05.065-04:00Any thoughts on how different the findings would b...Any thoughts on how different the findings would be if we tried replicating this in Economics? The fact that editors and referees were generally unable to detect the duplicate nature of the submissions is surprising to me (given my own experience of how I see professors connecting work presented at seminars to other related papers in the field) but the eventual outcome (in terms of editors recommending 8/9 rejects for these submissions) is not.sutirthabagchihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12544892024052334150noreply@blogger.com