EconomistPunter t1_iyd5dw8 wrote on November 30, 2022 at 2:58 PM

Such a weird dichotomy. I have 2 COVID era papers; one was published after 8 months with a 21 page revision. Another is still under review at its 3rd journal.

I would imagine name recognition plays some role (if you couldn’t figure it out I don’t have it) but my experience certainly wasn’t of a faster process. Instead, it was more thorough than regular review.

[deleted] t1_iyd5l6c wrote on November 30, 2022 at 2:59 PM

[removed]

Swarzsinne t1_iyddd97 wrote on November 30, 2022 at 3:53 PM

It could also be you’re suggesting something people don’t want to hear.

EconomistPunter t1_iydf25r wrote on November 30, 2022 at 4:04 PM

Shouldn't be; it corresponds with a lot of the literature on the effectiveness of COVID shutdown policies to COVID cases (reduced it) and deaths (minimal impact).

Swarzsinne t1_iydff92 wrote on November 30, 2022 at 4:07 PM

Yeah, that doesn’t sound controversial. But I guess that would also depend on who is reviewing it.

EconomistPunter t1_iydfsww wrote on November 30, 2022 at 4:09 PM

True. The joys of figuring out the peer review process.

Perfect-Height-8837 t1_iyeumm8 wrote on November 30, 2022 at 9:35 PM

I suspect the fact that it wasn't controversial is exactly why it took so long to get it published. Read or listen to the book "making the world add up" by Tim Harford to see how ridiculous the peer review process can be.

Listen to How to Make the World Add Up by Tim Harford on Audible. https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/1405543000?source_code=ASSOR150021921000V