So it was desk rejection from the Economics e-journal for the preprint. Probably more of those to be expected given I'm not officially an economist by degree ... but I am a member of the AEA -- doesn't that count? It probably would have gone to my head (in a bad way) had it made it through peer review without a hitch.
It's on the arXiv and also apparently at EconPapers for those that are interested (and/or want to spread it around ... ):
I am somewhat partial to Igor Carron's idea of a public peer review process ... as I mentioned in my first blog post:
Instead of trying (and probably failing) to publish [information transfer model of supply and demand] as a paper, I was inspired by Igor Carron to just think out loud with a blog. This blog will be focused on determining if the framework established here is good for anything or just an interesting toy model. Or if it is completely wrong!
My first journal also rejected EEG/ITM- they basically said it was too abstract for them. Now we are trying again at a methods journal.ReplyDelete
I'm sure you will be able to get it published, you might have to pay for an open source journal, which can be good, just expensive.
I hear Econ grad students have a hard time getting published, so I've set my expectations accordingly.
It can always get published somewhere, just have to drift down in prestige factor. With the internet I think where you publish means a lot less than it used to.Delete
Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury" got 14 rejections, as I recall. :)ReplyDelete
Courage, mon vieux!
Maybe I should write a book instead ...Delete
Book: Sure... maybe you could do the talk show circuit. Colbert, Trevor Noah, Jimmy Kimmel, ... do you have a magic act or something? That'd help. Know any Kardashians? Lawrence Lessig probably needs an economic advisor... hmm, ... by chance do you have a cat that can play Jenga?Delete
Jason, what's a "desk rejection?" Does it come with any kind of an explanation? I assume it did not get sent around for peer review.ReplyDelete
Desk rejection comes before peer review, so there is usually no explanation (and there wasn't).Delete