OK, but I've never had a paper turned around in less than 6 months (and
often it has taken up to a year) at any journal except the QJE. Also,
you can't divide time to publish by 3 since most of the time there is
only 1 revise and resubmit and in my experience more papers are accepted
on the first
friend had a paper go three rounds at AER and that took 3 years. I
wouldn't be surprised if a lot of bad papers get rejected quickly and
that would bring down the average turn around time a lot.
That is indeed the case. Journals get many papers of low quality, and it's
easy to reject the bad
Fears that some incident or other will trigger a
global crash have cropped up off and on for many years--such as the Asian
currency devaluations or Greenspan's emergency bailout of that big hedge fund
some years back. Are these fears more or less groundless, or is the world
economy really
In a message dated 10/15/02 11:54:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While there is a lot of nutty stuff in academia
Does that mean there are many nutty professors? I thought there were only
two--Jerry Lewis and Eddie Murphy. :) If there are many, how could we model
the market for them?
From: Warnick, Walt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the natural sciences, basic research at
universities tends to be funded by the Federal
government... Basic research funded by corporations
is very small.
Which hits on my original remark: if we have two types
of scientists, Basic Applied, and if
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 05:16:11PM -0700, john hull wrote:
The economic benefits of this separation [between Applied and Basic
researchers] outweighs the cost of paying for basic research.
How is this separation a benefit at all?
Not separating them will mean that they can better cooperate with
