https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12108-019-09424-1
How can a publication allow this? This an embarrassment to Marx, the publication, and the profession, right?
WTF? Gary Marx self review in The Sociologist
-
For pete's sake, it is satirically titled --in the damn title! His book received more than 50 reviews, and the piece in TAS is a response to those reviews.
Does anyone here read anything before commenting?!
https://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/wis_bookreviews.htmlGood point. If you really want to pick at something about it, the list of recent publications he made sure to include on the email to the ASA CLD list serve (which included more than just this) is probably a bit more crass.
-
Show me another journal that would give an author the chance to do that. f**king vanity projects aren't what journals are for.
For pete's sake, it is satirically titled --in the damn title! His book received more than 50 reviews, and the piece in TAS is a response to those reviews.
Does anyone here read anything before commenting?!
https://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/wis_bookreviews.html -
Has one actually read this? I just did and it is a disaster. It's mostly incoherent. I'm not really sure what the main point is? The opening rambles. The satirical review in the middle is bizarre and painful to read. It ends by posing a whole banal series of first-time-in-grad-seminar type questions. I think it's exactly what OP made it out to be. It's indulgent and nonsensical.
-
Has one actually read this? I just did and it is a disaster. It's mostly incoherent. I'm not really sure what the main point is? The opening rambles. The satirical review in the middle is bizarre and painful to read. It ends by posing a whole banal series of first-time-in-grad-seminar type questions. I think it's exactly what OP made it out to be. It's indulgent and nonsensical.
In other words, OP is Marx.
-
Has one actually read this? I just did and it is a disaster. It's mostly incoherent. I'm not really sure what the main point is? The opening rambles. The satirical review in the middle is bizarre and painful to read. It ends by posing a whole banal series of first-time-in-grad-seminar type questions. I think it's exactly what OP made it out to be. It's indulgent and nonsensical.
Nonsense. You may not like the piece, that's fine. But OP suggested it was a self review by lack of reviews, when it is a satirical piece in response to more than 50 reviews! I think TAS can publish such things.