Même à partir d'un jpg ?

Sur internet nettoie ton ordinateur 🤔

I am not aware of any updated version, but I would not hold my hopes up from the echoes I have about editorial policies in the top 5.

It also highlights the importance of studying controversies in economics (even informal ones), something made incredibly harder by the potential decreasing importance of replies and comments in the profession. If you want to know more, you can read it here:
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1...

This case study is particularly interesting to understand how the process of peer review impacts controversy. More generally, in the paper, we try to highlight how this very specialized controversy captures broad and older historical oppositions in economics and behavioral economics.

The 2010 JEBO issue included a paper by Eckel and Gintis in defense of FS. The editors received dozens of referee reports for the paper of BS (some unsolicited), and the issue led to important tensions within the editorial board...

The controversy moved from specialized issues related to model calibration to whether this part of behavioral economics was even science at all. Another aspect that led the controversy to grow in scope was the people involved. While it initially only involved BS and FS, others joined.

By the end of the editorial process, the ironical, sarcastic, and satirical dimension of the controversy disappeared (i.e., the personal attacks), but the aggrandizing dimension with respect to the scientific stakes remained and even amplified as the controversy grew in scope.

In 2010 the controversy moved to the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization (JEBO). The strong rhetoric of these first exchanges was an obstacle in the process of moving into a more traditional peer-reviewed context. Editors were strongly involved to avoid "over-the-top personal attacks".

For example, Shaked commented, "Could it be that, with the exception of Quarterly Journal of Economics's proofreader, no one has ever carefully read the details of the paper until now?" while FS ironized that Shaked had the rhetoric of a literary critic, not of an economist.

Shaked was drawn to publish his comments online because he considered economics publications to be flawed by a lack of published discussions (see first tweet). The open nature of this type of publication also led the authors to adopt strong rhetoric: irony, sarcasm, and aggrandizing claims...

The first originality of the controversy is that it started outside of the traditional institutional boundaries of peer-reviewed publication with two unpublished papers circulating in mailing lists.

FS responded the same year with an online paper accusing Shaked of "misquoting" them and "making grave charges without substantiating them" (again more details in the paper). In 2010, Kenneth Binmore joined Shaked (BS) with another critical paper followed by a reply by FS and a final rejoinder by BS

In our case, the controversy started with a self-called "pamphlet" by Avner Shaked in 2005. You can read our papers for the exact arguments but simply put, for Shaked, FS built their model unconstrained by empirical results to make it appear better than self-interest models.

Existing literature emphasizes that controversies are not only structured by the scientific issues at stake or the quality of the arguments but also by how the wider community reacts, the format of the controversy (traditional media, journal articles...), or its length (decades...).

Our article studies an important controversy about Fehr and Schmidt's (FS) model of pro-social behavior. Our goal is not to say who is right or wrong, but rather to study how economists (and in this particular case behavioral economists) solve such conflicts.