The New Year has barely started, but the world of academia seems to be back to work, and sending me a variety of gifts, some more welcome than others. Coincidentally or otherwise, it’s also the day I’ve moved to semi-retirement, a half-pay position involving only research and public engagement.
Most welcome surprise: an email telling me I’ve been elected as a Fellow of the Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory. In the way academia works, some friendly colleagues must have proposed this, but I had no idea at all
Most culturally clueless: A request for a referee report, due in three weeks. This is January in Australia – only the most vital jobs get done
Most interesting: An invitation to join the editorial board of Econometrics, an MDPI journal in which I have published an article of which I am quite proud, though of course it has received almost no attention. MDPI is a for-profit open access publisher, which regularly deals with accusations of predatory behaviour. A search reveals that the existing editors have resigned, something which is happening a bit these days.
I’m in n>2 minds about this. I think that journal rejection rates in economics are absurdly high, in a way that damages intellectual progress. Eric has expressed the same view regarding philosophy, which is closer to economics in cultural terms than any other discipline (Macarena’s post is highly applicable to econ).
On the other hand, I’m always dubious about the motives of for-profit firms (that includes the “reputable” firms like Elsevier and Wiley).
And on hand #3, I’ve just semi-retired, and I don’t feel like taking on a fight in which I have no dog.
So, I’ll probably stick with the plan of spending more time at the beach, working on my triathlon times, and trying not to get too depressed about the state of the world, at least those bits I can do nothing too change.
John Quiggin 
First, congratulations on your semi-retirement!! (Which btw sounds more sensible than a total quit, for those who like their jobs.)
As someone way up in the bleachers, I would just love to see a Consumer Reports-type of organization to ride herd on studies in general. If that is possible. Bc as much as I love journalists, I don’t think most of them are able to fulfill this crucial function, even just in terms of time. Social sciences are important, even if there may be a(n) (inevitable?) squish factor. Also, I don’t even trust polls as much as I used to. I suspect the online ones are bosh-y. And yet as a potential poll-ee, I refuse to take them because I don’t know what will happen with all that information they want! Plus, hacking. So who are these people taking these polls?
I wish I read faster. It makes one wistful to think of all the (executive summaries of the) studies one will never get to.
Congratulations JQ! I, amongst many others, look forward to your continued public engagement, (please!).
The economics/business Ph.D. students that are required to publish to graduate these days sure look rather unhappy here at my not particular prestigious hometown university.
“Normal is an illusionary concept” I just read. The same may be said about economics I believe. As Kate Raworth observed: “Economics is not a science, it is an opinion”.
When we watch the slow demise of Neo-liberalism, with its designed feature of inequality and rent seeking, and the growing popularity of Inclusive Growth in the North European countries, that have figured out that reducing inequality growth the economy, demonstrates that economics is what ‘experts’ want it to be. May be!
John, I wouldn’t waste your precious time with MDPI journals if I were you. I don’t have direct experience with Econometrics, but I’ve had some bad experiences with Games in recent years.
The MDPI playbook is to set up a journal, run it as a respectable outlet for a few years, build a reputation, and then cash in on the reputation with an absurd number of pay-for-play special issues with no quality control.
Take the Econometrics gig. Use your position to publish a violent but math-heavy diatribe against the parasitism and bad incentives of for-profit scientific publishing. Resign the way Bill Watts did in 1970 from a senior national security position in the Nixon/ Kissinger/ Haig White House:
““He [Al Haig] said, ‘You have had an order from your Commander-in-Chief and you can’t refuse.’ I looked at him and said, ‘F*** you, Al, I just have and I am resigning’” (https://adst.org/2014/11/take-this-job-and-shove-it-mr-kissinger/ – first hand account, unedited.) Slam saloon doors on the way out. Mount white horse and ride off into the sunset.
Retirement advice of this quality is literally priceless.
Just blowing smoke rings here, but might there be any way to combine the objectives of fixing scientific journals and also fixing the science career path (here at least it seems broken-ish) at the same time? Do people get paid, ever, to review things?
Bc if it were somehow done independently, maybe that would be good for the journals, and maybe also it could improve the process and maybe even feed a few people? All I know is, I meet from time to time people with all kinds of stem degrees who have a tough time finding a decent job. If you aren’t in pharma or computers, it doesn’t look so great.
But this isn’t even from the bleachers, I’m out in the lot. Sub-anecdotal. But, I care about this as a consumer – why are we so hard on these people? I don’t get it.