A Paper, Together With 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 survive 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 relish 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 zip -- the "zero bound" or "liquidity trap." (Which reprised an before 2000-ish conversation nigh 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 give the sack strongly induce the economic scheme alongside promises to handgrip 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 give the sack receive got huge multipliers. Broken windows as well as hurricanes are expert for the economy. And though toll stickiness is the fundamental occupation inwards the economy, lowering toll stickiness makes matters worse. (See the newspaper for citations.)
The newspaper shows how tenuous all these predictions are. The models receive got multiple solutions, as well as the response they give comes downwardly to an almost arbitrary pick of which solution to pick. The measure pick implies a downward boundary inwards the toll grade when the recession starts, which requires the regime to enhance taxes to pay off a windfall to regime bondholders. Picking equilibria that don't receive got this toll grade jump, as well as don't require a boundary to large financial surpluses (which nosotros don't see) I overturn all the predictions. Sorry, no magic. If yous desire a ameliorate economy, yous receive got to piece of work on supply, non demand.
Today's thoughts, though, are nigh the soil of academic publication.
I wrote the newspaper inwards the fountain 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 nipper revisions from JME. Many (good) comments from editor
August 2017. Final revision to JME
September 2017. Proofs, publication online.
Dec 2017. Published.
This is nigh typical. Most of my papers are rejected at 2-3 journals before they observe 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 in i lawsuit 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 zip boundary inwards new-Keynesian models inwards the in conclusion 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 exclusively on published enquiry is hopelessly out of date.
Interest rates lifted off the zip boundary quite a patch ago, so inwards the policy conversation this publication at best goes into the shelf of ideas to survive revisited if the adjacent recession repeats the in conclusion i alongside an extended menstruum of zip involvement rates , as well as if nosotros meet repeated invocation of the rather magical predictions of new-Keynesian models to cure it. If the adjacent 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 locomote inwards to graduate reading lists to a greater extent than than 5-10 years later their deport on volition survive read inwards terminal form, but non most.)
And this newspaper is perfected. The comments of nine real sudden reviewers as well as 3 thoughtful editors receive got improved it substantially, along alongside at dozens of drafts. Papers are a conversation, as well as it does select a village. The newspaper likewise benefitted from extensive comments at workshops, as well as several long e-mail conversations alongside colleagues.
The passage of fourth dimension has helped every bit well. When I conk dorsum to a newspaper later 6 months to a year, I observe all sorts of things that tin give the sack survive clearer. Moreover, inwards the fourth dimension betwixt start submission as well as in conclusion 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 similar a shot moved on.
The amount length of nine referee reports, 4 reports yesteryear 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 24-hour interval or 2 reading the newspaper as well as writing thoughtful comments. Moreover, though the reports were excellent, yesteryear the start 3 they yesteryear as well as large made the same points. Was all this endeavour genuinely worthwhile? I scream back 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 role isn't working that good either. But having journals outsource character evaluation was e'er an imperfect institution. Maybe nosotros should merely receive got star ratings instead -- seriously, start upwards a website devoted to crowd-sourcing working newspaper evaluation. Or, peradventure tenure committees volition receive got to genuinely start reading papers. I don't scream back the journals meet this every bit their top dog role either. They're laid to pose out papers, non estimate people's tenure, so improving journals every bit a tenure granting machinery volition survive a difficult sell.
There is some expert intelligence that this information betoken represents, relative to 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 oestrus of bespeak for circular later circular of revisions. Now at that spot is a rigid ethic of either rejecting the paper, or doing i circular of revisions as well as so either publishing alongside nipper changes or not. Related,
Journal editors receive got become, good editors. The referees provide advice, but the editor thinks nigh it, decides which advice is expert as well as not, as well as makes the terminal call. Editors used to defer decisions to referees, which is component subdivision of the ground why at that spot were endless revisions. This modify is real good. Referees receive got petty incentive to select the procedure to a close, as well as they don't meet the pipeline of papers to the journal. They are non inwards a expert seat to observe the correct residue of perfection as well as timeliness.
In my case, editors were real active. The referees wrote thoughtful reports, but largely made similar points. In fact, the strongest advice to refuse came at the JME. But the AER as well as QJE editors were non impressed inwards the cease yesteryear the paper, as well as the JME editor was.
So, alongside this soil of affairs inwards mind, how powerfulness nosotros all piece of work to improve journals as well as the publication process?
I volition select for granted that greater speed, as well as making journals to a greater extent than effective at communication as well as non merely archiving as well as ranking is important. For i reason, to the extent that they proceed to lose the communication function, people won't ship articles there. Already yous tin give the sack notice that later 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 select on this project of dearest for magazine publication declines speedily alongside age. Research productivity as well as inventiveness does non select quite such a parallel decline. (I hope!)
Always the free-market economist, I banking concern annotation that conference volumes, edited volumes, as well as solicited papers inwards regular journals seem to survive good for yous as well as increasing, which is a natural response to magazine slowdown. This is a way to larn papers inwards impress to a greater extent than quickly. In the early on days of the meshing I had a dominion never to pose out inwards volumes, every bit they disappeared to library shelves as well as could non survive works life electronically. Now many of them receive got solved that problem. The NBER macro annual as well as Carnegie-Rochester conferences are expert examples. The Review of Finance editor of late solicited my "Macro-finance" essay which hence sped through publication. My active editors are likewise oftentimes taking a to a greater extent than active role inwards soliciting promising working papers. This helps to suspension the editor-to-paper match. But this isn't an ideal soil of affairs either. Conference volumes tend towards commissioned work. Original piece of work yesteryear 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, at that spot 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 give the sack do. It is: practise unto others every bit yous would receive got them practise unto you. If yous complain nigh tiresome journals, well, how speedily practise you plow around reports?
My recommendation, which is the dominion I essay to follow: Answer the e-mail inside a day. Spend an lx minutes or 2 alongside the paper, as well as determine if yous volition referee it or not. If not, say so that day. If yous tin give the sack 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 merely who has written what as well as who is an ideal fit. If you're non the ideal fit, so assist the editor yesteryear finding a ameliorate fit, as well as practise it correct a way.
If yous handgrip to practise a report, practise it inside a week. If yous can't practise it this week, you're non probable to survive able to practise it 5 weeks from now, as well as say no.
More suggestions:
Journals insist that yous exclusively ship to i magazine at a time. And so facial expression a twelvemonth or to a greater extent than to take away heed what they desire to practise alongside it. Especially similar a shot that nosotros are moving towards the editor-centric system, as well as the fundamental inquiry is a tally alongside editor's tastes, why non allow magazine editors portion reviewer advice as well as compete for who wants to pose out 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 pose upwards alongside this. It's the way that the elevation journals larn the social club stream of best papers. Why doesn't some other magazine say, yous tin give the sack ship it to us at the same fourth dimension every bit yous ship it to the AER. We'll honor their priority, but if they don't desire it nosotros volition receive got start right. The AER almost does this alongside its acre journals. But the JME could larn to a greater extent than ameliorate papers faster yesteryear competing on this dimension.
The journals say 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 e-mail correspondent brings upwards a expert point:
The New-Keynesian Liquidity Trap is published inwards the Journal of Monetary Economics -- online, impress volition survive 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 relish 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 zip -- the "zero bound" or "liquidity trap." (Which reprised an before 2000-ish conversation nigh 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 give the sack strongly induce the economic scheme alongside promises to handgrip 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 give the sack receive got huge multipliers. Broken windows as well as hurricanes are expert for the economy. And though toll stickiness is the fundamental occupation inwards the economy, lowering toll stickiness makes matters worse. (See the newspaper for citations.)
The newspaper shows how tenuous all these predictions are. The models receive got multiple solutions, as well as the response they give comes downwardly to an almost arbitrary pick of which solution to pick. The measure pick implies a downward boundary inwards the toll grade when the recession starts, which requires the regime to enhance taxes to pay off a windfall to regime bondholders. Picking equilibria that don't receive got this toll grade jump, as well as don't require a boundary to large financial surpluses (which nosotros don't see) I overturn all the predictions. Sorry, no magic. If yous desire a ameliorate economy, yous receive got to piece of work on supply, non demand.
Today's thoughts, though, are nigh the soil of academic publication.
I wrote the newspaper inwards the fountain 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 nipper revisions from JME. Many (good) comments from editor
August 2017. Final revision to JME
September 2017. Proofs, publication online.
Dec 2017. Published.
This is nigh typical. Most of my papers are rejected at 2-3 journals before they observe 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 in i lawsuit 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 zip boundary inwards new-Keynesian models inwards the in conclusion 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 exclusively on published enquiry is hopelessly out of date.
Interest rates lifted off the zip boundary quite a patch ago, so inwards the policy conversation this publication at best goes into the shelf of ideas to survive revisited if the adjacent recession repeats the in conclusion i alongside an extended menstruum of zip involvement rates , as well as if nosotros meet repeated invocation of the rather magical predictions of new-Keynesian models to cure it. If the adjacent recession is a stagflation or a sovereign debt crisis, you're on your own.
Rather than agency of communication,
- Journal publications receive got larn 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 locomote inwards to graduate reading lists to a greater extent than than 5-10 years later their deport on volition survive read inwards terminal form, but non most.)
And this newspaper is perfected. The comments of nine real sudden reviewers as well as 3 thoughtful editors receive got improved it substantially, along alongside at dozens of drafts. Papers are a conversation, as well as it does select a village. The newspaper likewise benefitted from extensive comments at workshops, as well as several long e-mail conversations alongside colleagues.
The passage of fourth dimension has helped every bit well. When I conk dorsum to a newspaper later 6 months to a year, I observe all sorts of things that tin give the sack survive clearer. Moreover, inwards the fourth dimension betwixt start submission as well as in conclusion 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 similar a shot moved on.
The amount length of nine referee reports, 4 reports yesteryear 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 24-hour interval or 2 reading the newspaper as well as writing thoughtful comments. Moreover, though the reports were excellent, yesteryear the start 3 they yesteryear as well as large made the same points. Was all this endeavour genuinely worthwhile? I scream back 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 role isn't working that good either. But having journals outsource character evaluation was e'er an imperfect institution. Maybe nosotros should merely receive got star ratings instead -- seriously, start upwards a website devoted to crowd-sourcing working newspaper evaluation. Or, peradventure tenure committees volition receive got to genuinely start reading papers. I don't scream back the journals meet this every bit their top dog role either. They're laid to pose out papers, non estimate people's tenure, so improving journals every bit a tenure granting machinery volition survive a difficult sell.
There is some expert intelligence that this information betoken represents, relative to 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 oestrus of bespeak for circular later circular of revisions. Now at that spot is a rigid ethic of either rejecting the paper, or doing i circular of revisions as well as so either publishing alongside nipper changes or not. Related,
- Journal editors are to a greater extent than decisive.
Journal editors receive got become, good editors. The referees provide advice, but the editor thinks nigh it, decides which advice is expert as well as not, as well as makes the terminal call. Editors used to defer decisions to referees, which is component subdivision of the ground why at that spot were endless revisions. This modify is real good. Referees receive got petty incentive to select the procedure to a close, as well as they don't meet the pipeline of papers to the journal. They are non inwards a expert seat to observe the correct residue of perfection as well as timeliness.
In my case, editors were real active. The referees wrote thoughtful reports, but largely made similar points. In fact, the strongest advice to refuse came at the JME. But the AER as well as QJE editors were non impressed inwards the cease yesteryear the paper, as well as the JME editor was.
So, alongside this soil of affairs inwards mind, how powerfulness nosotros all piece of work to improve journals as well as the publication process?
I volition select for granted that greater speed, as well as making journals to a greater extent than effective at communication as well as non merely archiving as well as ranking is important. For i reason, to the extent that they proceed to lose the communication function, people won't ship articles there. Already yous tin give the sack notice that later 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 select on this project of dearest for magazine publication declines speedily alongside age. Research productivity as well as inventiveness does non select quite such a parallel decline. (I hope!)
Always the free-market economist, I banking concern annotation that conference volumes, edited volumes, as well as solicited papers inwards regular journals seem to survive good for yous as well as increasing, which is a natural response to magazine slowdown. This is a way to larn papers inwards impress to a greater extent than quickly. In the early on days of the meshing I had a dominion never to pose out inwards volumes, every bit they disappeared to library shelves as well as could non survive works life electronically. Now many of them receive got solved that problem. The NBER macro annual as well as Carnegie-Rochester conferences are expert examples. The Review of Finance editor of late solicited my "Macro-finance" essay which hence sped through publication. My active editors are likewise oftentimes taking a to a greater extent than active role inwards soliciting promising working papers. This helps to suspension the editor-to-paper match. But this isn't an ideal soil of affairs either. Conference volumes tend towards commissioned work. Original piece of work yesteryear 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, at that spot 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 give the sack do. It is: practise unto others every bit yous would receive got them practise unto you. If yous complain nigh tiresome journals, well, how speedily practise you plow around reports?
My recommendation, which is the dominion I essay to follow: Answer the e-mail inside a day. Spend an lx minutes or 2 alongside the paper, as well as determine if yous volition referee it or not. If not, say so that day. If yous tin give the sack 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 merely who has written what as well as who is an ideal fit. If you're non the ideal fit, so assist the editor yesteryear finding a ameliorate fit, as well as practise it correct a way.
If yous handgrip to practise a report, practise it inside a week. If yous can't practise it this week, you're non probable to survive able to practise it 5 weeks from now, as well as say 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 choice of using the existing referee reports, along alongside my response every bit to how I receive got incorporated or non their suggestions. Nobody has ever taken me upwards on this offer. Why not? Especially similar a shot that editors are making to a greater extent than decisions? Some people mistakenly catch publication every bit a semi-judicial proceeding, as well as authors receive got a "right" to novel opinions. Sorry, journals are at that spot to pose out papers.
Why non opened upwards refereeing? The report, as well as author's response, conk to a world repository that others tin give the sack see. Why non allow anyone comment on papers? Authors tin give the sack respond. Often the editor doesn't know who the best mortal 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 loathe this. OK, but peradventure that should survive a choice. Fast as well as public, or tiresome as well as private.
While we're at it, what about
- Simultaneous submission. Competition (heavens!)
Journals insist that yous exclusively ship to i magazine at a time. And so facial expression a twelvemonth or to a greater extent than to take away heed what they desire to practise alongside it. Especially similar a shot that nosotros are moving towards the editor-centric system, as well as the fundamental inquiry is a tally alongside editor's tastes, why non allow magazine editors portion reviewer advice as well as compete for who wants to pose out 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 pose upwards alongside this. It's the way that the elevation journals larn the social club stream of best papers. Why doesn't some other magazine say, yous tin give the sack ship it to us at the same fourth dimension every bit yous ship it to the AER. We'll honor their priority, but if they don't desire it nosotros volition receive got start right. The AER almost does this alongside its acre journals. But the JME could larn to a greater extent than ameliorate papers faster yesteryear competing on this dimension.
The journals say 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 e-mail correspondent brings upwards a expert point:
- Journals should survive the forum where competing views are hashed out.
They should survive component subdivision of the "process of formalizing good argued unlike points of views -- not refereeing "the truth." We dont know the truth. But hopefully larn closer to it yesteryear arguing. [In public, as well as inwards the journals] The neverending refereeing [and editing as well as publishing] procedure is shutting downwardly the conversation."
When I read good argued papers that I disagree with, I tend to write "I disagree alongside merely nigh 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 survive published, as well as I should write upwards my objections every bit a response paper."
No comments