Message from one Econometrica Co-Editor to me:
“The main message we wanted you to take away from our email is that we welcome publishing any and all work that shows flaws in work we published previously. We have encouraged you to submit your work more than once, and I repeat that again now. (I know you feel your work was mistreated by other editors in the past, and I also hope it was clear that I would have made every effort to avoid that happening again.).”
Econometrica acknowledges that I feel my work was mistreated. Wow! How observant!
[Update: The “main message” was clarified more recently by Econometrica’s decision to forbid Che-Lin and I to include in our note examples that showed how wrong some of their favorite papers are. Lesson: You cannot believe anything these guys tell you.]
The more relevant fact is that Econometrica never acknowledged that there was anything unusual or mistaken or incorrect about how my work, or that of anyone else, was treated. Moreover, not even one editor was interested in having a substantive discussion about any of these matters nor displayed any personal intellectual curiosity about the numerical methodology I was referring to. They apparently “felt” that nothing was wrong nor was there anything of interest to them in these comments. Any doubt about that was put to rest by the declaration that no computational economist “met their requirements” to be an Associate Editor.
I know that this Co-Editor is sincere in encouraging me to submit my work to Econometrica, but what is the value of assurances that he would have worked to avoid past problems? My impression is that Econometrica is a decentralized operation. There is no Econometrica, only Econometrica/Newey, Econometrica/Morris, Econometrica/Berry, etc. Furthermore, I have to deal with Econometrica as an ongoing institution; it is irrational to rely on the assurances of one individual whose tenure at Econometrica is limited.
Did Econometrica become better at handling computational submissions after I received those assurances? The evidence I have seen tells me nothing has changed.
I also feel uncomfortable with assurances that my work will be treated better. I once asked a Co-Editor who made similar assurances regarding my submissions if those assurances applied to my collaborators. The mumbling that followed made clear that the answer was “No”. Because I have lived in the Midwest for much of my life, I am familiar with how a “Machine” operates — if someone fights the Machine and is perceived as potentially damaging the Machine, then the Machine invites that individual to join the Machine. Therefore, I do not like any conversation focusing on my submissions. I am not a sleazy ward politician who fights the Machine so that he can get an invitation to join.