I'm a retired academic...used to teach research methods and statistics...reviewed more manuscripts for journals than I can remember...and did my share of wrestling with editors and boards as an author. I observed over time that journals (and book publishers) generally publish material that serves a certain agenda, and this goes beyond the more traditional Kuhnian (paradigmatic) sense. The world seems to be polarizing rapidly, and the rush to shore up fraying narratives and suppress dissent often produces dreck like Fisman et al.'s paper. My guess is that editorial urgency bypassed peer review altogether; that would be the least-troubling scenario.
I'm a retired academic...used to teach research methods and statistics...reviewed more manuscripts for journals than I can remember...and did my share of wrestling with editors and boards as an author. I observed over time that journals (and book publishers) generally publish material that serves a certain agenda, and this goes beyond the more traditional Kuhnian (paradigmatic) sense. The world seems to be polarizing rapidly, and the rush to shore up fraying narratives and suppress dissent often produces dreck like Fisman et al.'s paper. My guess is that editorial urgency bypassed peer review altogether; that would be the least-troubling scenario.
Thank you for your work and sharing it on C19D!
...and "hate science" is the best label for it! 🤠