How to Publish in a Top Journal (I wish that I knew!) • Daniel S. Hamermesh • University of Texas at Austin  Top Journals • What is a “top journal?” A “decent journal?” • Top 3 general? • Top 5 general (but are they general)? • What about specialized journals? • Hierarchies in sub-fields: • Labor economics • Public economics • Monetary economics • What about the Stengos et al recent-citation based rating system? • The difficulty of getting published in Top, or even Decent journals • Acceptance rates at top general journals • Acceptance rates at top field journals • Conclusion: Life is tough!  Topics to Work On • What is source of ideas? • Athena from the head of Zeus? Danger of being removed from mainstream • A neat bit of data? • Reflection on the literature? • Reflection/comment on one paper? • More generally—don’t write comments—or things that can be viewed as comments • Best topic: Whatever interests you • But keep the profession in mind • Think about how it fits in some literature Should You Coauthor? • Pro • Economies of scope • Fun • Mentoring—a two-way street • Con • No extra rewards  How to Write It Up • What is THE Question? • Can you describe (to yourself) what you have done that is new in ≤ 2 sentences? • NOT: Joe did this, Al did that, and I’m doing this variation? • Novelty upon a base.  The Typical Outline for an Empirical Paper • Typical outline: • Introduction • Theory—or theoretical basis • Data • Results • Tests and/or implications of results • Conclusions/implications • “Introduction” • Not a literature review. It may cite things that motivate, but should never review them. Shouldn’t be a lit review at all, anywhere in paper. Cited papers fit in to illustrate only. • Is a statement of the problem, its background and importance. • “Theory” • To show something new, not to show you can repeat others. • To derive or motivate your empirical work • To clarify your idea in readers’ minds • Data • Lengthier if novel; shorter if data are well known (e.g., lengthy descriptions of PSID, NLSY) • Descriptive statistics—often can make main point here. • Results • Shouldn’t be a “breathless romp through the data” • Unlike sex, foreplay shouldn’t be most of the duration—the results must be discussed at length • Stress/discuss the original; spend no time on standard results. • Results must be linked to theoretical derivation—and vice-versa. • Tests and implications • Various tests for robustness of results—but only major ones. Minor checks go in footnotes. • Uses of the results—explicit applications to problems—e.g., simulating policy responses; analyzing implications for interesting phenomena. • Conclusions/implications • NOT just a rehash of what you did. That should be ≤ 2 paragraphs of a conclusion that is at least 3 paragraphs. • Should put in context of literature—what you have added. • Should say something about where one might go—but should be general; shouldn’t be modifications of yours. • Policy implications ONLY if they are novel, relevant. Too often these are forced.  Alternatives to the Standard Outline • Data and results can come before Theory to motivate new theoretical insights. • Is a Theory section really necessary? At least a theoretical discussion is; better that than a phony theory. • Again, NO LIT REVIEW  Writing English Properly • Read D. McCloskey—but that is fairly high level. • Why this matters? • Readers’ time is scarce • Readers infer substantive sloppiness from written sloppiness • English is easy at one level, very difficult at another; and it can be bad at several levels • Lowest level—so bad that reader cannot infer what you are doing. Reader infers you do not know either. • Next level—repeated subject-verb disagreements, incorrect pluralization and possessives, etc. • Next level • Left-out articles—a common problem for Asian-language speakers, Russians. • Incorrect prepositions. • Incorrect gerunds and participial phrases  Solving English Problems • What to do about the writing? • Get a native English speaker to read it carefully for you. • Always read word-for-word before sending it off. • Have your spouse/partner read it—if he/she can’t understand intro/concls, probably unclear. • Publicity as an improving device • Use your PR office • This helps your University. • Your Dean loves it. • Enhances your usefulness to society • Provides a good check on your work—can you explain it to the press layperson?  Off to the Journal! • How to choose a journal—a matching problem. • AR forecasts of their interests; but • Editors get tired of a subject • Reintroducing stuff related to what they had done, but haven’t for a while • Journal style—consider JPE, QJE, REStuds. • Importance of being familiar with editors’ interests • Honest evaluation of your own paper. Of course start high—but not all babies can become President! What is scarce at journals? • Refereeing time—of good referees. • Journal Space • Most important—editor’s time What is being maximized? • Journal fame/visibility • Measured by work generated, citations given. • Recentness of your own paper published there—so what? • What about >1 submission at same place? • How long—what should be in an appendix—or in unpublished appendices— or on Web? • One-sided, normal fonts, double-spaced  Hearing from the journal • Realistically chances are slim—but rejection doesn’t get easier with experience • Rarity of outright acceptances, ubiquity of outright rejections • JEP 1992 explains what to do about rejections, or almost rejections  Acceptances • Yogi Berra—”it ain’t over ‘til it’s over!” But when it is positive: • Celebrate (and put on CV). • Don’t think about winner’s curse • How to know when it’s dead—when to “pull the plug : • When you’ve tried all reasonable places • When you’re down to journals that are “indecent” • Compare marginal gain to opportunity cost—and both differ with experience and horizon