Bryan Caplan  

Tyler: A Plague on Both Your Houses

The P-I-E Model... An Illustration of Premium Med...

Tyler on refereeing:

A properly critical and useful "accept" report is harder to write. Don't look for excuses to quickly reject a potentially good paper.

Tyler on being refereed:

If you get careless, sloppy, or downright outrageous referee reports, it is probably your fault. You didn't give the editor or referees enough incentive to care about your piece. So respond to such reports constructively with a plan for self-improvement, don't blame the messenger, even when the messenger stinks. Your piece probably stinks too.

Comments and Sharing

COMMENTS (2 to date)
eric writes:

Economists should be more innovative in this area. Specifically, the process of getting a yeah or nay from a single or couple of experts, is a rather odd criteria for being pubworthy. It encourages insular, self-referential research cliques that are irrelevant and ephemeral. Why not have a joint quality&novelty criteria(via an expert) and a separate importance/interesting critera(via an expert in a slightly different field)?

The bottom line is that I think there's too much academic publishing, so a standard that constrained the flow would generate a more useful research environment. The last thing you want is to be like math or the hard sciences, where everything is published, no matter how trivial.

mobile writes:

Do your best with the things under your control, and be serene about the things that are not. It's what Dr. Laura would say if she had a call-in show devoted to academic economists.

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top