-
I agree We should stop constantly dissociating « the work » and « the person », because it objectively favors the harassers There are enough talented researchers out there to fund, who publish great papers and have breakthrough ideas* natureindex.com/news-blog/we-need-to-treat-sexual-harassment-the-same-as-research-misconductPermalink
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood +8 🙂
-
*I’m always baffled how certain ideas are considered as stupid until they are published by someone at a top institution And I’m also equally baffled how certain stupid ideas are considered as great because they are published by someone at a top institutionPermalink
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +5 🙂
-
Of course I am NOT saying people at top institutions are stupid or less deserving that anyone else. They worked hard and should be treated as everyone else. What I’m saying is that we should judge the *ideas* based on their merit instead of the affiliation of who says them.Permalink
Mood -1 🙁
-
We need to change that if we want economics to get closer to an actual science. And imho, it’s a collective responsibility to pay *more* attention to ideas that originate from lesser-known places, and to stop fetishizing everything that comes from top univs and the AER.Permalink
Mood +2 🙂
-
(Plus we all know getting published in the AER is mostly a signal of having the right network, amirite? So why do we keep considering papers published in journals like that as « top » papers? Not that they are necessarily bad papers.Permalink
Mood -1 🙁
-
But considering everything we know about how papers are published in the AER, the rational evaluation is not "it’s there because it’s good" but "it’s there because the author has the right network".Permalink
Mood +3 🙂
-
I’m all in favor of a label system for journals that are truly « open » to everybody, and not just to people who know the right persons)
Mood +2 🙂
-
(At the very least, those journals should be ranked higher or be given more importance in the recruitment decisions that « closed » ones, ceteris paribus)Permalink
Mood +2 🙂