让人shock的杂志拒信

JordiUID：2501274

现在某些作者喜欢把referee report，主要是rejection letter挂在自己网上——当然，这通常是在自己的论文发表以后，以此显示先前的rejection是多么的不靠谱。偶然读到了这么一封挂在网上的，倒确实让人难以置信，我甚至可以想象作者读信时的恼怒。
https://urresearch.rochester.edu/fileDownloadForInstitutionalItem.action?itemId=127&itemFileId=150
（背景知识：Engines of Liberation一文最后发表在Review of Economic Studies, 2005年，这封拒信是2002年AER的）
里面这样写道：Even taken on its own terms, this paper is an incredible mess-terribly written, and terribly organized. Casual language is employed throughout mixed with high-tech language out of place in mainstream journal. Wild assertions peper the text, historical evidence appears at random with no apparent understanding of the context, research by sociologists and social historians is berated- I could go on. In short, this paper is nowhere close to being in a state where it could be considered for publication by any economic journal, much less a major one.
拒信的最后一段这样写道：
I do hope the authors continue to think about applying dynamic GE models to historical issues. I also hope that they spend more time with knowledgeable economic historians - or, if none are close at hand, persuade their colleagues to hire one.

dairymanUID：2683905

焦急当中的一粒笑料
这让我萌生了想写paper的意思
求同志一块儿写paper~

patientUID：2729901

最有名的拒信应该是akerlof的lemmon market了吧，分别被JPE, RES, AER拒了之后最后发表在QJE上。其中JPE的点评是：if this paper was correct, then no goods could be traded.

AnderuthUID：2206102

听说一位牛人收到的一封据信，理由是
I do not like the organization of this paper.

cedricquUID：2294360

好想知道这个referee是谁啊太牛了！言辞虽然激烈，不过整个report似乎也不全然不靠谱，至少看的还是蛮认真的，但似乎和作者间在方法论上差异很大，导致如此negative的意见。虽然俺不懂实证研究，但觉得很有意思，希望有更多的人把referee report帖出来晒晒哈

shuroUID：2401325

呵呵挺有意思的

爱烤鱼的小伙UID：2580692

我去，骂人不带脏字儿大概就是这个样子了吧