This article was nominated for deletion on 3 Feb 2007. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 July 2007. The result of the discussion was delete.

Per the Guide to deletion, I have recreated the socionomics article and detailed here the reasons for doing so. This new version addresses the relevant issues raised in the AfD, and therefore cannot be speedily deleted. I do not own this article, but instead hope to collaborate with other editors who wish to produce a first-rate encyclopedia article.

The administrator who closed the AfD said it was "principally about whether 'Socionomics' is -- currently -- a sufficiently notable scientific concept (or term) to be included in Wikipedia." When challenged regarding "scientific concept," he said: "At issue was not mainly WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, but whether the subject was notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, or whether it was a nonnotable neologism used almost exclusively (and promoted by) your employer." [1]

Thus the two relevant criterion are notability and neologism:

1. Notability says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
2. Neologism says, "If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."

(The closing admin did not mention an argument made repeatedly in the AfD, namely that socionomics fails to meet undue weight. This criterion does not apply to article topics as such. NPOV undue weight addresses differences of opinion within an article -- as in, the lesser weight of minority opinions vs. the greater weight of majority opinions regarding the same topic. The example used in the undue weight discussion makes this obvious, namely that the earth article only very briefly refers to the flat earth theory. To underscore the point, NPOV undue weight also says: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.")

The evidence below shows “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject,” including “results published in a peer-reviewed journal” and in “reputable news outlets.”

1. Behavioral Trading, p. 26.[http://www.amazon.com/Behavioral-Trading-Measuring-Confidence-Expectations/dp/1587991640/sr=1-16/qid=1169499685/ref=sr_1_16/104-3952358-4532733?ie=UTF8&s=books]
2. Technical Analysis Plain and Simple, pp. 127-128. [2]
3. Evidence-Based Technical Analysis, p. 151. [3]
4. The New Laws of the Stock Market Jungle p. 269. [4]
5. The Irwin Guide to Using the Wall Street Journal, p. 354. [5]
6. Applying Elliott Wave Theory Profitably, p. 179. [6]
7. Hot Trading Secrets: How to Get In and Out of the Market with Huge Gains, p. 7, 35, 53. [7]
8. Secrets of the Undergroundtrader, p. 273. [8]
9. The Book of Investing Wisdom: Classic Writings by Great Stock-Pickers and Legends of Wall Street, pp. 263-272, Peter Krass Editor (Prechter essay, "Elvis, Frankenstein and Andy Warhol"). [9]
10. How Do We Create a Philosophical Cosmos for Acting Socially and Being Happy? [10]
11. The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics,[http://www.amazon.com/Principle-Social-Behavior-Science-Socionomics/dp/0932750540/ref=sr_1_1/103-1953508-0645419?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182867366&sr=1-1] Robert Prechter.
12. Pioneering Studies In Socionomics, [http://www.amazon.com/Principle-Social-Behavior-Science-Socionomics/dp/0932750540/ref=sr_1_1/103-1953508-0645419?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182867366&sr=1-1] Robert Prechter.

• Comment. Rgfolsom's lengthy list above is extremely extremely misleading. The first four books listed above that I was able to check through a full-text search do not discuss socionomics, or simply footnote Robert Prechter's book: Behaviorial Trading p. 26 only mentions the Prechter book once and does not discuss socionomics except as the title of the book (despite the false characterization "Books with a non-trivial mention of socionomics"); Technical Analysis: Plain and Simple does not mention Socionomics at all according to Safari; New Laws of the Stock Market Jungle does not mention Socionomics at all according to Safari; The Irwin Guide does not mention socionomics at all according to Google books; and I stopped checking after that first four-for-four strikeout. I encourage others to double-check the list also and include their findings. THF 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Robert R. Prechter Jr. (2001), "Unconscious Herding Behavior as the Psychological Basis of Financial Market Trends and Patterns," Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, Vol. 2, No. 3: pages 120-125. ( document here)
2. John Nofsinger (2005), "Social Mood and Financial Economics," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 6, no. 3, pages 144-160. (The author's use of "social mood" is synonymous with socionomics document here.)
3. Kenneth R. Olson (2006), "A Literature Review of Social Mood," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 7, No. 4 ( abstract here), pages 193-203.
4. Robert R. Prechter Jr. and Wayne D. Parker (2007), "The Financial/Economic Dichotomy in Social Behavioral Dynamics: The Socionomic Perspective," Journal of Behavioral Finance, vol. 8 no. 2 ( abstract here), pp. 84-108.

Two of these papers are non-independent use of the neologism by Prechter; the other two use "social mood", not "socionomics," and it is the editor's conclusion that they are really about socionomics. THF 17:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

by Robert Prechter

1. The Kenos Circle: Oil Puzzle Conference
   March 16-17, 2006, Vienna, Austria
   “Peak Oil Or Peak Prices?”
2. The Socionomics Institute
   SUNY College at Plattsburgh
   November 3, 2005 - Plattsburgh, New York
   "The Socionomic Model of Financial and Social Causality"
3. Canadian Society of Technical Analysts
   Montreal Annual Conference
   October 15, 2005 - Montreal, Canada
   "The Socionomic Model of Financial and Social Causality"
4. Market Technicians Association
   MTA Education Seminar 2005
   May 19-22, 2005 - New York City, NY
   Two-part introduction to socionomics
5. The Socionomics Institute
   April 8, 2005 - Cambridge, MA
   "The Socionomic Model of Financial and Social Causality"
6. Georgia Tech University
   April 6, 2005 - Atlanta, GA
   Prechter addressed the university's Quantitative Computational Finance students.
7. First International Workshop on Intelligent Finance - A Convergence of Mathematical Finance with Technical and Fundamental Analysis (IWIF)
   University of Ballarat
   December 13, 2004 - Melbourne, Australia
8. International Federation of Technical Analysts
   5th Annual Technical Analysis Expo
   March 19-20, 2004 - Paris, France
   "Fundamentals of Socionomics."
9. London School of Economics and Political Science
   March 18, 2004 - London, England
   " Socionomics - Social Mood as the Engine of Social Activity."
10. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Financial Engineering, Sloan School of Management
    September 12, 2003 - Cambridge, MA
    "Fundamentals of Finance and Socionomics."
11. Neuro-economics Conference
    September 18-21, 2003 - Martha's Vineyard, MA
12. Emory University, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
    February 2003 - Atlanta, GA

by John Casti, Ph.D

1. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
   A seminar sponsored by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation titled: “Globalization as Evolutionary Process: Modeling, Simulating, and Forecasting Global Change”
   April 6-8, 2006, Laxenburg, Austria
   “The Decline and Fall of Globalization”
2. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich
   Teleconferenced lecture broadcasted from SHARE/Consulate of Switzerland, in Cambridge
   April 20, 2006, Boston, USA
   " Why the Future Happens: Socionomics and the Science of Surprise."
3. University of Warwick, Socio-Dynamics Seminar
   May 9-11, 2005 - London, England
4. Economics Department, University of Otago Departmental Seminar
   July 21, 2004 - Hamilton, New Zealand
5. University of Nevada, Economics Department, Departmental seminar
   July 21, 2004 - Hamilton, New Zealand
6. 9th Annual Meeting on Artificial Life and Robotics
   July 21, 2004 - Hamilton, New Zealand
7. Conference on Philosophy and Complexity
   July 21, 2004 - Hamilton, New Zealand
8. London School of Economics and Politics, Complexity Research Programme meeting.
   July 21, 2004 - Hamilton, New Zealand
9. Brazilian National Super Computer Center
   August 21, 2003 - Petropolis, Brazil
10. Massey University seminar in Applied Math Department
    July 23-25, 2003 - Albany, New Zealand (Auckland)
11. Australian Center for Industrial Research and Operational Management
    July 11, 2003 - Melbourne, Australia

by Michael K. Green, Ph.D., SUNY College at Oneonta

1. The Economic History Research Area of the European Association of Evolutionary Political Economy (EAEPE)
   and the Economic Policy Laboratory (EMOP-Athens University of Economics and Business) Joint Colloquium, May 12-13, 2006, Athens, Greece
   Athens University of Economics and Business
2. "The variety of economic institutions under the many forms of capitalism"
   Philosophy, Interpretation, and Culture Conference
   April 22-23, 2005 - Binghamption University, NY
   "Social Ontologies and the Basis of the Social Sciences"
3. Association for Institutional Thought (AFIT) 2005
   April 13-16, 2005 - Albuquerque, New Mexico
   "Institutions and Social Ontologies"
4. Northeast Popular Culture Association Conference
   October 30, 2004 - Newbury College, Brookline, MA
   "Finding Nemo and the Social Expression of Optimism"
5. Second International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities
   July 20-23, 2004 - Monash University Centre, Prato, Tuscany, Italy
   Conference Theme: New Directions in the Humanities
   "Humanistic Economics: Placing Economics on Ancient Foundations"
6. 2004 Annual Conference of the International Association for Critical Realism (IACR)
   August 17-19, 2004 - Cambridge University, England
   Conference Theme: Theorizing Social Ontology
   "Mechanistic, Teleological, and Formological Ontologies"
7. Association for Heterodox Economics Annual Conference 2004
   July 16-18, 2004 - University of Leeds, UK
   Conference Theme: New Directions in Economics
   "Formological Economics and the Coming Collapse of the American Economy"
8. Association for Institutional Thought Annual Conference 2003
   April 11-14, 2004 - Salt Lake City, Utah
   Conference Theme: Institutional Economics
   "Formological Economics and the Collapse of the American Economy: Veblen and Emulative Desire"
9. The International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics
   June 5-7, 2003 - University of Missouri at Kansas City, Kansas
   Conference Theme: New Directions in Economics
   "Orthodoxic Inversion, Multi-State Stability, and Economic Pluralism"

by Wayne Parker, Ph.D., Emory University (inactive status)

1. International Conference on Cognitive Economics
   August 5-8, 2005 - New Bulgarian University
   "Herding: An Interdisciplinary Integrative Review from a Socionomic Perspective"
2. Association for Heterodox Economics
   July 14-16, 2006, London, England
   "The Socionomic Theory of Finance and the Institution of Social Mood"
3. Joint Annual Congress of the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology (IAREP) and the Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE)
   July 5-8, 2006 - Paris, France
   "Methodological Individualism vs. Methodological Holism: Neoclassicism, Institutionalism and Socionomic Theory"

• Citation of Prechter's socionomics research paper [11]
• Citation of Prechter's socionomics research paper [12]
• Citation of Casti's socionomics research paper [13]
• American National Election Studies, a collaboration of Stanford and the University of Michigan, selected the Socionomics Foundation's proposed questions regarding social mood for inclusion in a study funded by the National Science Foundation. The social mood proposal was one of thirty proposals chosen from 1,100 submissions; other selectees are from universities such as Columbia, Princeton, Harvard Law School, Brown, NYU, UC Berkley, and MIT. The Socionomics Foundation was the one non-university selected. [14]

• "I Know What You'll Do Next Summer," New Scientist, 31 August 2002, p. 32.
• "Storm Warning! How Social Mood Drives Markets," Futures magazine (cover), Nov. 2004.
• "Social Mood and the Markets," Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, June 2003, p. 50.
• "Trader's Hall of Fame Award - Robert Prechter," Stocks Futures and Options Magazine, July 2003, p. 42.
• "Is Prechter's bearishness permanent?", Peter Brimelow, Dow Jones MarketWatch, 30 June 2003. [15]
• "Not waving but drowning in financial theories," John Authers, Financial Times, 6 October 2006 [16]
• "How History Happens," John Casti, Complexity, vol. 8 issue 6, 1 Dec. 2003, pp. 12-16.
• "The social mood as a source of friction that can boost stocks and corporate profits has been extremely well analyzed by Robert Prechter in a very insightful report entitled `The Socionomic Insight versus the Assumption of Event Causality' in The Elliott Wave Theorist of June 1, 2002…. While I am less dogmatic than Prechter is about the social mood as the cause of political, social, and economic events, and while I believe that the cause and the effect are frequently difficult to discern and, in any event, tend to reinforce themselves, I certainly do agree with him that when the social mood is optimistic and full of confidence, as it was in the late 1990s, reality is lost touch with, and careful analysis and caution are thrown to the wind, which leads to expanding P/Es and excessive valuations, and that when the mood deteriorates, a phase of sobering up and skepticism follows the preceding euphoria, which leads over time to significantly lower valuations." Contrarian Investor Column, Marc Faber, Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, 6 August 2002.

A Google search for "socionomics" brings some 48,000 results -- and those exclude results from elliottwave.com, socionomics.net, and socionomics.org. Around 2,300 of the Google search results are non-English language, thus socionomics has some international notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL it appears that the term is also used in other meanings. Or how do you account for

Canines also are important in other aspects of socionomics (biting)? [17]

anyway, it appears obvious that the term has some notability. The question is, is its notability separate from Prechter's? If not, the material here should just be merged into Prechter's article (the continued existence of which is undisputed). dab (𒁳) 14:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

There appears indeed to be a separate concept, coined by one R. Naroll [18]. Counting google hits, this has to be taken into account. -- dab (𒁳) 14:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

You're obviously right that the term appears elsewhere with another meaning. From what I can tell and as your own search suggests, those amount to a tiny percentage. Your question about notability is 100% on point, and I hope you'll check the references in the article and AfD page -- I firmly believe you'll find a satisfactory answer in those places. Thanks, -- Rgfolsom 14:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

the 50,000 hits may simply be the result of spamming (of the sort we are trying to avoid on WP precisely by the ongoing AfD). Google scholar yields 45 hits. About half of these are directly tied to Prechter or the "Socionomics Institute". In the remaining [ 19 hits, the psychological term seems to predominate over the economic one. dab (𒁳) 12:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't know about spam, I did see at least some duplicate results in the general Google search -- I took as much time as I reasonably had looking for reliable sources, in the general search plus Google scholar and books, and in some subscription databases. Of course I may have missed something that's out there, but I've posted everything in the AfD that looked like a reliable source. Hope this helps.-- Rgfolsom 13:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Vox Day's column.[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33784]
• Minyanville applies socionomics.

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]

• Motor Age on socionomics essay on car colors. [23]
• Slashdot review. [24]
• Hackwriters review. [25]
• Film review of socionomics documentary related to horror genre. [26]
• Blog entry about socionomics. [27]
• Market analysis using socionomics. [28]

(Should have signed this when I posted) -- Rgfolsom 01:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Much of the text violates WP:NOR and WP:SYN by synthesizing published work to state a conclusion that that work did not state. Perhaps Freud's work is similar to Prechter's, but that's for a reliable source to state, not for a Wikipedia editor. THF 17:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

THF has attached 11 synthesis tags where there is no synthesis in the text. WP:SYN forbids an editor taking two reliable sources (A and B) and joining them “to advance position C.” But in the socionomics article, each instance of the so-called “synthesis” describes the work of one source alone, complete with quotes. There is no joining of a second source, hence no “synthesis” to advance a third position. The mention of Pareto in the quote from Prechter and Parker is a synthesis, but that is one source (A) joining another source (B) to advance its own position (A). This is fully footnoted, yet even that received a synthesis tag. These tags are clearly misapplied.-- Rgfolsom 02:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It's a violation of WP:OR then to claim that these are related. Freud certainly doesn't say that he's talking about socionomics. THF 00:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

THF has again attached synthesis tags, even though I have already explained that there is no synthesis. As for WP:OR, each one of those quotes directly addresses collective mood and/or behavior, as does socionomics -- there is no "claim" that they are "related" beyond the face value of the words in the quotes. The article says that historians and theorists "have described trends and changes in social mood, and the actions that follow" -- that's not even an "argument" or "analysis," much less "original research. It's an observation of the facts. If the quotes fail to support that comment, please explain how.-- Rgfolsom 01:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

A = "Prechter calls Socionomics is the study of social mood." B = Freud related herd instinct to separation anxiety. Impermissible statement C = Freud's research is similar to socionomics. B can't be cited unless it is specifically about socionomics, and argument C can't be made (in the section title or elsewhere) unless it is sourced. Again, please see WP:SYN and WP:NOR. THF 01:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

1. The article observes that “socionomics posits that social mood trends result from humans’ unconscious impulse to herd in contexts of uncertainty,” because that is what Prechter and Parker published in the Journal of Behavioral Finance.
2. The articles observes that Freud said, “Opposition to the herd is as good as separation from it, and is therefore anxiously avoided....The herd instinct would appear to be something primary...”
3. The article observes that those two observations are similar – but a “similarity” is not “C,” a third position. To observe similarity is not even “analysis,” much less an “argument.” How on earth does noting the similarity of two observations amount to joining those positions into the third position mentioned in WP:SYN? If noting a similarity really is a “synthesis” that amounts to a “third position,” in what way does this third position “C” differ from A and B? If C is not different from A or from B, then where is the synthesis? Answer the question, please.-- Rgfolsom 02:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

See also this comment by User:Blueboar. THF 02:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Synthesis need not explicitly state the conclusion (although, as Blueboar noted, this article does in the headings). Any any "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" is forbidden. The purported similarity of these ideas is indeed a position, and it's one that could be applied recklessly to other topics. No sources attach weight to this similarity, so any mention of it is undue. At any rate, I'm glad jossi removed the most untenable section. Cool Hand Luke 02:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Luke, if the article lives through the AfD, I'll rewrite that section so that any suggestion of similarity/synthesis is referenced to a reliable source, and put the revision on this page for comment before including it in the article -- and I hope you would comment. But for the moment the OR issue is out of the article; if I read you correctly, your remaining issue is NEO. At the top of the AfD page I quoted NEO, "If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner." Do you really think that the article at present, and the sources I've provided on the AfD, fail to satisfy what NEO stipulates?-- Rgfolsom 15:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I still think it violates NEO as it's seldom used by anyone except Prechter. However I'm heartened by jossi's conviction and trust that you won't re-add the claims without sources. It's actually a much closer call now, and I would not object too much if the article is retained—I just think merging to Prechter is a better solution. Cool Hand Luke 22:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Every "scholarly" citation in this article is to the Journal of Behaviorial Finance. Editor Trialsanderrors contests whether it qualifies in the following comment left on the AFD discussion, which I repeat here: THF 21:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment I was asked to read the Prechter/Parker 2007 paper that formed the basis of the rewrite of this article and comment on its scientific value. My verdict is this: the authors display an ignorance of economic concepts at such a fundamental level that the inclusion in the journal shows that the Journal of Behavioral Finance lacks the editorial oversight we require to consider a source reliable. A key thrust of the paper is the argument that financial markets are fundamentally different from standard economic markets and that economic analysis fails to incorporate the differences. The authors support this with graphs of long-run ownership of computers vs. stock compared to their respective price levels, showing that computer ownership increased over time while prices dropped while stock ownership increased even though prices increased. The computer graph holds a vague resemblance to the standard X-shape of the common supply and demand model in economics, while the stock graph does not. In addition, the authors note that since anyone can buy and sell stocks at any given time, everybody is a buyer and seller, so distinguishing those types does not make sense. As an alternative they offer a model with only a demand curve, which is upward-sloping. All of this is of course nonsense. For one, the computer graph has nothing to do with a supply-and-demand graph, which captures intentions at a moment in time, while the computer graph captures transactions over a long time period. Changes in ownership over time are usually triggered by changes in wealth and changing consumer preferences more so than changing prices. Also, the X shape is not particularly typical for "standard" economic markets. Car ownership has increased over time even though cars have become more expensive. Similarily, gas consumption in the long run has increased with increasing gas prices. For two, the idea that someone can be a seller and buyer is nothing special in standard economics, it's known as a durbale goods market. I can buy a house at time t, own it for n periods and sell it in t+n. As a real estate speculator I can do this with multiple assets at the same time. I will still only be a buyer or a seller for a particular asset X, as I either own it or not own it. For three, the theoretical case of an upward-sloping demand curve is known as a Giffen good and is generally considered a hypothetical form, although under extreme market conditions (e.g. severe famine) it might arise. It certainly does not arise in financial markets. It implies that at the same time I would sell my asset at $40 and buy it at $60, losing $20 without any change in ownership. The JBE is a mainstream journal, but it lacks the history, selectivity and oversight to be considered reliable, and it certainly does not meet the "widely cited" requirement for inclusion. ~ trialsanderrors 20:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I take no position, but raise the issue for more experienced Wiki-admins than I on where the reliable sources guidelines fall. THF 22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment Some time ago I started to reading some alternative approaches to economics. In my opinion mainstream economics is in a desolate state and a Paradigm shift within the next 10-20 years is rather likely. I would not discard an alternative journal because some authors use graphs different from standard economics. In my opinion, this here is not a fringe theory, but an alternative approach, something that could develop over time into a competing paradigm. As such, it could be notable. However, since this article was previously deleted, I don't think that its recreation is acceptable. If the author wants to keep the content, he can either merge it into Robert Prechter or create an article for Pretcher's book Pioneering Studies in Socionomics or something that like. Zara1709 00:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Zara, thanks for your thoughtful remarks. Please know that I did not rewrite and post the socionomic article to "challenge" anyone -- I took scrupulous care to show that it met all of Wikipedia's article standards. I also made sure I consulted the guide to deletion, which says:

If you think that an article was wrongly deleted, you can recreate the article. If you do decide to recreate it, pay careful attention to the reasons that were proffered for deletion. Overcome the objections, and show that your new, improved work meets Wikipedia article policies….If you manage to improve on the earlier version of the article and overcome its (perceived) shortcomings, the new article cannot be speedily deleted, and any attempt to remove it again must be settled before the community, on AFD.

I hope you agree that this does allow a careful editor to present a new and improved work. Thanks.-- Rgfolsom 01:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, but it is easier to present this improved work somewhere else. With the current version I too get the impression that the article only presents the work of Robert Prechter. If this impression is correct, then it would be misleading to have this as an article on its own, but it would fit well into the article on him. I have not yet taken the time to take a close look at the previous discussion on deletion, so I don't know if you have responded adequately to the concerns raised there. If you could agree to merge this into Robert Prechter and keep this page as a redirect, it would make things a lot easier. You could still split it of again later, if Socionomics would indeed become the name of a competing paradigm (or if only other authors expand this approach). This way it would not only give more credit to Prechter, also editors could save the time that would otherwise have to be spend on this discussion. Zara1709 01:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

because some authors use graphs different from standard economics – Prechter & Parker are not making an argument "different from standard economics". They are trying to make a standard economic argument why finance differs substantially from "standard economics", except they confuse some very basic concepts of supply and demand. Any well-trained graduate student (who comprise the bulk of reviewers for non-first-tier academic journals) should be able to detect those and return the submitted draft with a request to correct them. This clearly hasn't happened here, which makes me believe the quality of reviewers is poor and the editorial oversight at the Journal of Behavioral Finance is weak. The journal itself has a good board of editors, but it's fairly young and it doesn't appear anywhere on the radar of the standard journal trackers, so its impact on the field is very suspect. ~ trialsanderrors 04:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply