A Paper, Too Publishing
Even at my betoken inwards life, the minute of publishing an academic newspaper is a i to celebrate, as well as a minute to reflect.
The New-Keynesian Liquidity Trap is published inwards the Journal of Monetary Economics -- online, impress volition live inwards December. Elsevier (the publisher) allows costless access as well as costless pdf downloads at the higher upwards link until Nov 9, as well as encourages authors to ship links to their social media contacts. You're my social media contacts, so savour the link as well as download freely patch yous can!
The newspaper is component subdivision of the 2012-2013 conversation on monetary as well as financial policies when involvement rates are stuck at goose egg -- the "zero bound" or "liquidity trap." (Which reprised an before 2000-ish conversation nearly Japan.)
At the time, new-Keynesian models as well as modelers were turning upwards all sorts of fascinating results, as well as taking them seriously plenty to recommend policy actions. The Fed tin strongly induce the economic scheme alongside promises to grip involvement rates depression inwards the future. Curiously, the farther inwards the futurity the promise, the to a greater extent than stimulative. Fiscal policy, fifty-fifty totally wasted spending, tin conduct maintain huge multipliers. Broken windows as well as hurricanes are expert for the economy. And though cost stickiness is the cardinal occupation inwards the economy, lowering cost stickiness makes matters worse. (See the newspaper for citations.)
The newspaper shows how tenuous all these predictions are. The models conduct maintain multiple solutions, as well as the response they give comes downward to an almost arbitrary pick of which solution to pick. The touchstone pick implies a downward natural springtime inwards the cost grade when the recession starts, which requires the authorities to heighten taxes to pay off a windfall to authorities bondholders. Picking equilibria that don't conduct maintain this cost grade jump, as well as don't require a natural springtime to large financial surpluses (which nosotros don't see) I overturn all the predictions. Sorry, no magic. If yous desire a amend economy, yous conduct maintain to piece of work on supply, non demand.
Today's thoughts, though, are nearly the solid soil of academic publication.
I wrote the newspaper inwards the natural springtime as well as summertime of 2013, posted it to the internet, as well as started giving talks. Here's the even out of its publication:
September 2013. Submitted to AER; NBER as well as SSRN working papers issued. Blog post.
June 2014. Rejected from AER. 3 expert referee reports as well as thoughtful editor report.
Oct 2014. Submit revision to QJE.
Dec 2014. Rejected from QJE. 3 to a greater extent than thoughtful referee reports as well as editor report.
Jan 2015. Submit revision to JME.
Apr 2016. Revise as well as resubmit from JME. 3 detailed referee reports as well as long as well as thoughtful editor report.
June 2016. Send revision to JME
July 2017. Accept alongside nestling revisions from JME. Many (good) comments from editor
August 2017. Final revision to JME
September 2017. Proofs, publication online.
Dec 2017. Published.
This is nearly typical. Most of my papers are rejected at 2-3 journals before they detect a home, as well as 3-5 years from start submission to publication is likewise typical. It's typical for academic publishing inwards general. Parts of this procedure went much faster than usual. Three months for a total evaluation at QJE is fast. And i time accepted, my newspaper sped through the JME. Another twelvemonth or 2 inwards the pipeline betwixt credence as well as publication is typical.
Note most journals count average fourth dimension to decision. But what matters is average fourth dimension to publication of the papers they publish, as well as what genuinely counts is average fourth dimension to publication inwards the magazine organization every bit a whole.
Lessons as well as thoughts?
Anyone doing enquiry on goose egg throttle inwards new-Keynesian models inwards the lastly 4 years, as well as carrying on this conversation, interacted alongside the working newspaper version of my newspaper (if at all), non the published version. Any piece of work relying solely on published enquiry is hopelessly out of date.
Interest rates lifted off the goose egg throttle quite a patch ago, so inwards the policy conversation this publication at best goes into the shelf of ideas to live revisited if the side past times side recession repeats the lastly i alongside an extended catamenia of goose egg involvement rates , as well as if nosotros encounter repeated invocation of the rather magical predictions of new-Keynesian models to cure it. If the side past times side recession is a stagflation or a sovereign debt crisis, you're on your own.
Rather than agency of communication,
the ark, the library, the identify where final, as well as perfected versions of papers are carved inwards rock for futurity generations. (Some lucky papers that come inwards to graduate reading lists to a greater extent than than 5-10 years afterward their touching on volition live read inwards lastly form, but non most.)
And this newspaper is perfected. The comments of nine rattling abrupt reviewers as well as 3 thoughtful editors conduct maintain improved it substantially, along alongside at dozens of drafts. Papers are a conversation, as well as it does pick out a village. The newspaper likewise benefitted from extensive comments at workshops, as well as several long electronic mail conversations alongside colleagues.
The passage of fourth dimension has helped every bit well. When I transcend dorsum to a newspaper afterward 6 months to a year, I detect all sorts of things that tin live clearer. Moreover, inwards the fourth dimension betwixt start submission as well as lastly revision, I wrote 4 novel papers inwards the same line, as well as insights from those permeate dorsum to this one.
So, inwards the end, though the basic points are the same, the exposition is much better. It's a haiku. Every give-and-take counts.
But such perfection comes at a large cost, inwards the fourth dimension of editors as well as referees, my time, as well as most of all the cost that the conversation has straight off moved on.
The total length of nine referee reports, 4 reports past times 3 editors, is much longer than the paper. Each i did a serious job, as well as clearly spent at to the lowest degree a twenty-four hours or 2 reading the newspaper as well as writing thoughtful comments. Moreover, though the reports were excellent, past times the start 3 they past times as well as large made the same points. Was all this assay genuinely worthwhile? I remember below on how to economize on referee time.
Of course, for younger people
Many institutions give tenure, chairs, raises, as well as other professional person advancement based at to the lowest degree inwards component subdivision on numbers as well as placement of publications. For that purpose, timeliness of publication is less of a problem, but alongside a half-dozen twelvemonth tenure clock at many places as well as 5 twelvemonth lags, timeliness of acceptance the character rating is a large problem. The sorting as well as branding business office isn't working that good either. But having journals outsource character evaluation was e'er an imperfect institution. Maybe nosotros should only conduct maintain star ratings instead -- seriously, start upwards a website devoted to crowd-sourcing working newspaper evaluation. Or, maybe tenure committees volition conduct maintain to genuinely start reading papers. I don't remember the journals encounter this every bit their master copy business office either. They're railroad train to expose papers, non estimate people's tenure, so improving journals every bit a tenure granting machinery volition live a difficult sell.
There is some expert word that this information betoken represents, relative to solid soil of magazine publishing 15-20 years ago. (See Glenn Ellison's superb "The slowdown inwards the economic science publishing process," JSTOR, undated, i of my proudest moments every bit a JPE editor.)
Journals had gotten inwards to a estrus of quest for circular afterward circular of revisions. Now in that location is a potent ethic of either rejecting the paper, or doing i circular of revisions as well as so either publishing alongside nestling changes or not. Related,
Journal editors conduct maintain become, good editors. The referees provide advice, but the editor thinks nearly it, decides which advice is expert as well as not, as well as makes the lastly call. Editors used to defer decisions to referees, which is component subdivision of the ground why in that location were endless revisions. This modify is rattling good. Referees conduct maintain footling incentive to convey the procedure to a close, as well as they don't encounter the pipeline of papers to the journal. They are non inwards a expert seat to detect the correct residue of perfection as well as timeliness.
In my case, editors were rattling active. The referees wrote thoughtful reports, but largely made similar points. In fact, the strongest advice to turn down came at the JME. But the AER as well as QJE editors were non impressed inwards the terminate past times the paper, as well as the JME editor was.
So, alongside this solid soil of affairs inwards mind, how mightiness nosotros all piece of work to improve journals as well as the publication process?
I volition pick out for granted that greater speed, as well as making journals to a greater extent than effective at communication as well as non only archiving as well as ranking is important. For i reason, to the extent that they transcend on to lose the communication function, people won't ship articles there. Already yous tin notice that afterward tenure, to a greater extent than as well as to a greater extent than economists start publishing inwards conference volumes, invited papers, edited volumes, as well as other outlets. (blogs!) The fraction willing to pick out on this project of dear for magazine publication declines speedily alongside age. Research productivity as well as inventiveness does non pick out quite such a parallel decline. (I hope!)
Always the free-market economist, I Federal Reserve annotation that conference volumes, edited volumes, as well as solicited papers inwards regular journals seem to live good for yous as well as increasing, which is a natural response to magazine slowdown. This is a way to teach papers inwards impress to a greater extent than quickly. In the early on days of the network I had a dominion never to expose inwards volumes, every bit they disappeared to library shelves as well as could non live flora electronically. Now many of them conduct maintain solved that problem. The NBER macro annual as well as Carnegie-Rochester conferences are expert examples. The Review of Finance editor lately solicited my "Macro-finance" essay which hence sped through publication. My active editors are likewise frequently taking a to a greater extent than active role inwards soliciting promising working papers. This helps to intermission the editor-to-paper match. But this isn't an ideal solid soil of affairs either. Conference volumes tend towards commissioned work. Original piece of work past times people out of the social network of the conference organizers as well as editors has a tough time. (The marketplace responds, organize to a greater extent than conferences.)
Suggestion one:
Around whatever economist cocktail party, in that location is a lot of whining that journals should practise x y as well as z to speed things up. I start alongside what yous as well as I tin do. It is: practise unto others every bit yous would conduct maintain them practise unto you. If yous complain nearly deadening journals, well, how speedily practise you plough around reports?
My recommendation, which is the dominion I assay to follow: Answer the electronic mail inside a day. Spend an hr or 2 alongside the paper, as well as create upwards one's heed if yous volition referee it or not. If not, enjoin so that day. If yous tin give a quick reaction behind your reason, that helps editors. And propose a few other referees. Often editors aren't completely upwards to appointment on only who has written what as well as who is an ideal fit. If you're non the ideal fit, so assist the editor past times finding a amend fit, as well as practise it correct a way.
If yous grip to practise a report, practise it inside a week. If yous can't practise it this week, you're non probable to live able to practise it 5 weeks from now, as well as enjoin no.
More suggestions:
Journals insist that yous solely ship to i magazine at a time. And so await a twelvemonth or to a greater extent than to remove heed what they desire to practise alongside it. Especially straight off that nosotros are moving towards the editor-centric system, as well as the cardinal interrogation is a gibe alongside editor's tastes, why non allow magazine editors portion reviewer advice as well as compete for who wants to expose it? By essentially eliminating the sequential search for a sympathetic editor, this could speed upwards the procedure substantially.
I don't know why lower-ranked journals lay upwards alongside this. It's the way that the tiptop journals teach the fellowship stream of best papers. Why doesn't some other magazine say, yous tin ship it to us at the same fourth dimension every bit yous ship it to the AER. We'll observe their priority, but if they don't desire it nosotros volition conduct maintain start right. The AER almost does this alongside its patch journals. But the JME could teach to a greater extent than amend papers faster past times competing on this dimension.
The journals enjoin they practise this to save the value of their reviewer time. But alongside shared or opened upwards reviews, that declaration falls apart.
We advocate contest elsewhere. Why non inwards our ain profession?
Update: An electronic mail correspondent brings upwards a expert point:
The New-Keynesian Liquidity Trap is published inwards the Journal of Monetary Economics -- online, impress volition live inwards December. Elsevier (the publisher) allows costless access as well as costless pdf downloads at the higher upwards link until Nov 9, as well as encourages authors to ship links to their social media contacts. You're my social media contacts, so savour the link as well as download freely patch yous can!
The newspaper is component subdivision of the 2012-2013 conversation on monetary as well as financial policies when involvement rates are stuck at goose egg -- the "zero bound" or "liquidity trap." (Which reprised an before 2000-ish conversation nearly Japan.)
At the time, new-Keynesian models as well as modelers were turning upwards all sorts of fascinating results, as well as taking them seriously plenty to recommend policy actions. The Fed tin strongly induce the economic scheme alongside promises to grip involvement rates depression inwards the future. Curiously, the farther inwards the futurity the promise, the to a greater extent than stimulative. Fiscal policy, fifty-fifty totally wasted spending, tin conduct maintain huge multipliers. Broken windows as well as hurricanes are expert for the economy. And though cost stickiness is the cardinal occupation inwards the economy, lowering cost stickiness makes matters worse. (See the newspaper for citations.)
The newspaper shows how tenuous all these predictions are. The models conduct maintain multiple solutions, as well as the response they give comes downward to an almost arbitrary pick of which solution to pick. The touchstone pick implies a downward natural springtime inwards the cost grade when the recession starts, which requires the authorities to heighten taxes to pay off a windfall to authorities bondholders. Picking equilibria that don't conduct maintain this cost grade jump, as well as don't require a natural springtime to large financial surpluses (which nosotros don't see) I overturn all the predictions. Sorry, no magic. If yous desire a amend economy, yous conduct maintain to piece of work on supply, non demand.
Today's thoughts, though, are nearly the solid soil of academic publication.
I wrote the newspaper inwards the natural springtime as well as summertime of 2013, posted it to the internet, as well as started giving talks. Here's the even out of its publication:
September 2013. Submitted to AER; NBER as well as SSRN working papers issued. Blog post.
June 2014. Rejected from AER. 3 expert referee reports as well as thoughtful editor report.
Oct 2014. Submit revision to QJE.
Dec 2014. Rejected from QJE. 3 to a greater extent than thoughtful referee reports as well as editor report.
Jan 2015. Submit revision to JME.
Apr 2016. Revise as well as resubmit from JME. 3 detailed referee reports as well as long as well as thoughtful editor report.
June 2016. Send revision to JME
July 2017. Accept alongside nestling revisions from JME. Many (good) comments from editor
August 2017. Final revision to JME
September 2017. Proofs, publication online.
Dec 2017. Published.
This is nearly typical. Most of my papers are rejected at 2-3 journals before they detect a home, as well as 3-5 years from start submission to publication is likewise typical. It's typical for academic publishing inwards general. Parts of this procedure went much faster than usual. Three months for a total evaluation at QJE is fast. And i time accepted, my newspaper sped through the JME. Another twelvemonth or 2 inwards the pipeline betwixt credence as well as publication is typical.
Note most journals count average fourth dimension to decision. But what matters is average fourth dimension to publication of the papers they publish, as well as what genuinely counts is average fourth dimension to publication inwards the magazine organization every bit a whole.
Lessons as well as thoughts?
- Academic magazine publication is non a useful component subdivision of communication amid researchers or the communication betwixt enquiry as well as policy.
Anyone doing enquiry on goose egg throttle inwards new-Keynesian models inwards the lastly 4 years, as well as carrying on this conversation, interacted alongside the working newspaper version of my newspaper (if at all), non the published version. Any piece of work relying solely on published enquiry is hopelessly out of date.
Interest rates lifted off the goose egg throttle quite a patch ago, so inwards the policy conversation this publication at best goes into the shelf of ideas to live revisited if the side past times side recession repeats the lastly i alongside an extended catamenia of goose egg involvement rates , as well as if nosotros encounter repeated invocation of the rather magical predictions of new-Keynesian models to cure it. If the side past times side recession is a stagflation or a sovereign debt crisis, you're on your own.
Rather than agency of communication,
- Journal publications conduct maintain teach the archive,
the ark, the library, the identify where final, as well as perfected versions of papers are carved inwards rock for futurity generations. (Some lucky papers that come inwards to graduate reading lists to a greater extent than than 5-10 years afterward their touching on volition live read inwards lastly form, but non most.)
And this newspaper is perfected. The comments of nine rattling abrupt reviewers as well as 3 thoughtful editors conduct maintain improved it substantially, along alongside at dozens of drafts. Papers are a conversation, as well as it does pick out a village. The newspaper likewise benefitted from extensive comments at workshops, as well as several long electronic mail conversations alongside colleagues.
The passage of fourth dimension has helped every bit well. When I transcend dorsum to a newspaper afterward 6 months to a year, I detect all sorts of things that tin live clearer. Moreover, inwards the fourth dimension betwixt start submission as well as lastly revision, I wrote 4 novel papers inwards the same line, as well as insights from those permeate dorsum to this one.
So, inwards the end, though the basic points are the same, the exposition is much better. It's a haiku. Every give-and-take counts.
But such perfection comes at a large cost, inwards the fourth dimension of editors as well as referees, my time, as well as most of all the cost that the conversation has straight off moved on.
The total length of nine referee reports, 4 reports past times 3 editors, is much longer than the paper. Each i did a serious job, as well as clearly spent at to the lowest degree a twenty-four hours or 2 reading the newspaper as well as writing thoughtful comments. Moreover, though the reports were excellent, past times the start 3 they past times as well as large made the same points. Was all this assay genuinely worthwhile? I remember below on how to economize on referee time.
Of course, for younger people
- Journal articles are a branding as well as sorting device.
Many institutions give tenure, chairs, raises, as well as other professional person advancement based at to the lowest degree inwards component subdivision on numbers as well as placement of publications. For that purpose, timeliness of publication is less of a problem, but alongside a half-dozen twelvemonth tenure clock at many places as well as 5 twelvemonth lags, timeliness of acceptance the character rating is a large problem. The sorting as well as branding business office isn't working that good either. But having journals outsource character evaluation was e'er an imperfect institution. Maybe nosotros should only conduct maintain star ratings instead -- seriously, start upwards a website devoted to crowd-sourcing working newspaper evaluation. Or, maybe tenure committees volition conduct maintain to genuinely start reading papers. I don't remember the journals encounter this every bit their master copy business office either. They're railroad train to expose papers, non estimate people's tenure, so improving journals every bit a tenure granting machinery volition live a difficult sell.
There is some expert word that this information betoken represents, relative to solid soil of magazine publishing 15-20 years ago. (See Glenn Ellison's superb "The slowdown inwards the economic science publishing process," JSTOR, undated, i of my proudest moments every bit a JPE editor.)
- Journals are doing fewer rounds, to a greater extent than desk rejection, to a greater extent than i circular as well as upwards or out.
Journals had gotten inwards to a estrus of quest for circular afterward circular of revisions. Now in that location is a potent ethic of either rejecting the paper, or doing i circular of revisions as well as so either publishing alongside nestling changes or not. Related,
- Journal editors are to a greater extent than decisive.
Journal editors conduct maintain become, good editors. The referees provide advice, but the editor thinks nearly it, decides which advice is expert as well as not, as well as makes the lastly call. Editors used to defer decisions to referees, which is component subdivision of the ground why in that location were endless revisions. This modify is rattling good. Referees conduct maintain footling incentive to convey the procedure to a close, as well as they don't encounter the pipeline of papers to the journal. They are non inwards a expert seat to detect the correct residue of perfection as well as timeliness.
In my case, editors were rattling active. The referees wrote thoughtful reports, but largely made similar points. In fact, the strongest advice to turn down came at the JME. But the AER as well as QJE editors were non impressed inwards the terminate past times the paper, as well as the JME editor was.
So, alongside this solid soil of affairs inwards mind, how mightiness nosotros all piece of work to improve journals as well as the publication process?
I volition pick out for granted that greater speed, as well as making journals to a greater extent than effective at communication as well as non only archiving as well as ranking is important. For i reason, to the extent that they transcend on to lose the communication function, people won't ship articles there. Already yous tin notice that afterward tenure, to a greater extent than as well as to a greater extent than economists start publishing inwards conference volumes, invited papers, edited volumes, as well as other outlets. (blogs!) The fraction willing to pick out on this project of dear for magazine publication declines speedily alongside age. Research productivity as well as inventiveness does non pick out quite such a parallel decline. (I hope!)
Always the free-market economist, I Federal Reserve annotation that conference volumes, edited volumes, as well as solicited papers inwards regular journals seem to live good for yous as well as increasing, which is a natural response to magazine slowdown. This is a way to teach papers inwards impress to a greater extent than quickly. In the early on days of the network I had a dominion never to expose inwards volumes, every bit they disappeared to library shelves as well as could non live flora electronically. Now many of them conduct maintain solved that problem. The NBER macro annual as well as Carnegie-Rochester conferences are expert examples. The Review of Finance editor lately solicited my "Macro-finance" essay which hence sped through publication. My active editors are likewise frequently taking a to a greater extent than active role inwards soliciting promising working papers. This helps to intermission the editor-to-paper match. But this isn't an ideal solid soil of affairs either. Conference volumes tend towards commissioned work. Original piece of work past times people out of the social network of the conference organizers as well as editors has a tough time. (The marketplace responds, organize to a greater extent than conferences.)
Suggestion one:
- Adopt the golden dominion of refereeing
Around whatever economist cocktail party, in that location is a lot of whining that journals should practise x y as well as z to speed things up. I start alongside what yous as well as I tin do. It is: practise unto others every bit yous would conduct maintain them practise unto you. If yous complain nearly deadening journals, well, how speedily practise you plough around reports?
My recommendation, which is the dominion I assay to follow: Answer the electronic mail inside a day. Spend an hr or 2 alongside the paper, as well as create upwards one's heed if yous volition referee it or not. If not, enjoin so that day. If yous tin give a quick reaction behind your reason, that helps editors. And propose a few other referees. Often editors aren't completely upwards to appointment on only who has written what as well as who is an ideal fit. If you're non the ideal fit, so assist the editor past times finding a amend fit, as well as practise it correct a way.
If yous grip to practise a report, practise it inside a week. If yous can't practise it this week, you're non probable to live able to practise it 5 weeks from now, as well as enjoin no.
More suggestions:
- Reuse referee reports
Do nosotros genuinely demand nine referee reports to evaluate i paper? I e'er offering editors of journals to whom I ship rejected papers the alternative of using the existing referee reports, along alongside my response every bit to how I conduct maintain incorporated or non their suggestions. Nobody has ever taken me upwards on this offer. Why not? Especially straight off that editors are making to a greater extent than decisions? Some people mistakenly see publication every bit a semi-judicial proceeding, as well as authors conduct maintain a "right" to novel opinions. Sorry, journals are in that location to expose papers.
Why non opened upwards refereeing? The report, as well as author's response, transcend to a world repository that others tin see. Why non allow anyone comment on papers? Authors tin respond. Often the editor doesn't know who the best individual is to referee a paper. Maybe a conference discussant has a expert insight. At to the lowest degree i official reviewer could practise goodness from collecting such information. Some scientific discipline journals practise this.
Some people would abhor this. OK, but maybe that should live a choice. Fast as well as public, or deadening as well as private.
While we're at it, what about
- Simultaneous submission. Competition (heavens!)
Journals insist that yous solely ship to i magazine at a time. And so await a twelvemonth or to a greater extent than to remove heed what they desire to practise alongside it. Especially straight off that nosotros are moving towards the editor-centric system, as well as the cardinal interrogation is a gibe alongside editor's tastes, why non allow magazine editors portion reviewer advice as well as compete for who wants to expose it? By essentially eliminating the sequential search for a sympathetic editor, this could speed upwards the procedure substantially.
I don't know why lower-ranked journals lay upwards alongside this. It's the way that the tiptop journals teach the fellowship stream of best papers. Why doesn't some other magazine say, yous tin ship it to us at the same fourth dimension every bit yous ship it to the AER. We'll observe their priority, but if they don't desire it nosotros volition conduct maintain start right. The AER almost does this alongside its patch journals. But the JME could teach to a greater extent than amend papers faster past times competing on this dimension.
The journals enjoin they practise this to save the value of their reviewer time. But alongside shared or opened upwards reviews, that declaration falls apart.
We advocate contest elsewhere. Why non inwards our ain profession?
Update: An electronic mail correspondent brings upwards a expert point:
- Journals should live the forum where competing views are hashed out.
They should live component subdivision of the "process of formalizing good argued unlike points of views -- not refereeing "the truth." We dont know the truth. But hopefully teach closer to it past times arguing. [In public, as well as inwards the journals] The neverending refereeing [and editing as well as publishing] procedure is shutting downward the conversation."
When I read good argued papers that I disagree with, I tend to write "I disagree alongside only nearly everything inwards this paper. But it's a well-argued representative for a mutual betoken of view. If my devastating study does non convince the author, the newspaper should live published, as well as I should write upwards my objections every bit a response paper."
0 Response to "A Paper, Too Publishing"
Posting Komentar