How to publish:

Advice from an editor

Ekaterina Zhuravskaya
 § Top 5:
§ AER, QJE, JPE, ECMA, RESTUD
§ Second-tier general-interest:
§ AEJs, JEEA, EJ, RESTAT, AER Insights (?)
The hierarchy of § Top field:
§ JPubE, JEG, JLE, JEH, JDE, etc.
the economics § Next tier: -- all others
journals § can end-up there, but never target
§ Different hierarchies:
§ Finance journals: JF, RFS, JFE / JB, JAE, etc.
§ Sciences: Science and Nature / Plos One, PNAS, etc.
 Life now is tougher than itfor
§ The competition used tospace
journal be has gotten
tighter over time for top and top-field journals
§ Top journals get about 1200-2000 submissions a
year
§ QJE publishes 44 papers per year
§ AER: 90; ECMA 70; EJ 100
I do not envy § QJE alone gets 200 beautifully-written papers with
you perfect identification, interesting question, and
evidence on the mechanism
§ Luck is very useful

§ New journals are not enough to compensate

§ AEJs: Applied, Policy, Micro, Macro; JPEs: Micro &
Macro; AER Insights
§ JPE itself expanded a lot
 Top journals publish:
§ less pure theory
§ more empirics based on novel data sets
(with or without theory)
Trends
§ number of co-authors increased
§ papers became much longer
§ With attempt to regulate this with page
limits
 § What we know more about is how not to publish…
§ Luck is never ever enough, need hard work
§ Hard work is not enough either, need good ideas
HOW? § Hard work and great ideas are not enough either
No-one knows, § they need to result in a text of an excellent quality,
really which ultimately merits publication
§ The first job – to have strong content, but then:
§ May need to rethink “work/life balance” before tenure
§ work-work-work
 1. The importance of the question and of the
main results
What editors are § on top of what we already know
looking for beside § understood broadly (rather than context specific)
correct content? 2. Degree of novelty in either method or data
3. Clarity, organization, narrative, and length of
the paper
 Writing - introduction

§ A paper is more than a collection

of results
§ it is a text with a narrative
Importance of § one story per paper
writing is huge! § It is a craft, one can learn:
§ Economics is not literature
§ no need to invent a wheel
§ use best practice, imitate
 Writing - introduction
§ The introduction is absolutely key to a paper’s
success:
§ You have to grab the attention of the editor and the
referees

§ Make your contribution to the existing literature

Writing: crystal clear in the introduction
§ Why is it important to study the question you are
intro addressing?
§ How do your findings advance our knowledge on this
topic?

§ Informative: Editors do not like lengthy

introductions, but reading introduction should be
enough to understand well what follows
 Writing
§ The paper needs to be well-structured
§ Standard: use examples of well published papers
§ Each section should have its logical place
§ Same for each paragraph with each section
§ Each sentence within each paragraph
Writing: § Think: what is the point and the logic
structure § Good structure => paper is clear and concise
§ Important virtue from the point of view of the Editor
§ Editors often skim a paper to see if it is well organized,
proceeding logically from one section to the next, and to
see if the points are made clearly
§ even before reading it carefully
 § Main figures and main tables need to tell the full
story of the paper (separately from the text and
vise versa)
§ Each table and figure should make a distinct and
single big point

Figures and § Editors often look through “exhibits” to get the story

Tables § if the exhibits are not self-explanatory and clear,

you lose the editor’s attention
§ Text: spell out what one needs to get from the exhibit
§ Despite the apparent cost of satisfying binding
page limits, put tables and figures at the end
§ This is easier to see for the editor and referees
 § Re-reading and re-writing is always super useful
Re-writing
§ Should be your main habit for writing
§ People make mistake of thinking of their text is sacred
§ Do not. Re-write. Sometimes re-write fully.
§ Many good articles got fully re-written several times
§ Try always to put yourself in the shoes of the reader
§ Read your text aloud, record it, listen
Rewriting § Ask your relatives non-economists to read the introduction
§ Read great papers from the point of view of craftsmanship
§ Learn by imitating
§ NB! this is different from copying

§ General rule for editing: cut and clarify

§ There is never enough of that advice
§ Should be your mantra
 § Editors and referees often take poor English and
typos as a signal of low quality
§ If the paper is full of typos, this is a signal that the
author is not careful
§ Potentially, not only in language

Writing: § Tables and figures need to be referenced and

English numbered in the order they appear in the text
§ Do not give impression of being sloppy in any even
tiny detail
§ Get a good English copyeditor
§ Do not overestimate what the copyeditor can do
§ Recent Elsevier’s announcement of the use of ChatGPT
 Random tips
§ Titles: Short better than long
§ Titles: Informative better than sexy and uninformative
§ Writing: Never plagiarize or self-plagiarize
§ You will be lucky if your paper is NOT published
§ If it is – plagiarism means life ban
§ When I say imitate great authors, this means in how the paper
Writing tips is crafted, not in ideas or words

§ Writing: Minimize using I, never use “my data”, “my

strategy”, etc..
§ Paragraphs should be always shorter than ½ page
§ No more than 1 footnote per page on average
§ EVERY word in the abstract matters
§ Art of abstracts: need to be short, but tell the entire story
 Writing: Citation
§ Editors gamesif a paper coming out of a
get annoyed
large literature has small citation list
§ Suspecting that the author cites people who would
make friendly referees

§ All editors use internet and immediately

determine who has written important papers on
the subject
Citation games? § However, literature review should be small
§ Cite papers, but do not review them, unless they are
directly relevant to the main question and you need to
explain the difference between them and your work
§ Formulate contribution, do not oversell
§ Do not have a special literature section, integrate it
into the introduction
 § Shop for ideas, data sets, co-authors
§ Work only on topics that interest you
How to chose § No way to deliver on making other people
interested in your work, if you do not think it is
topic? interesting
§ Fun fact: environmental
 § Make a career writing new original papers, rather than
criticizing others
§ Writing and publishing comments on other papers (even
Comments on in top journals) is not a great idea

other papers? § This makes people in the profession angry and authors
usually get the final word anyway
§ They are allowed to publish a response, most of the time
§ These authors will be your referees in the future
 § Are necessary for most people
§ More fun
§ Discussions
§ Best critique
§ Careful reader
§ Economies of scale

§ The skills of co-authors ideally should be complementary

§ Some people are great at ideas, others at crafting papers (both
Co-authors types of skills necessary)
§ But every co-author is responsible for all of the content
§ More senior co-authors are very useful to learn from
§ Try to have not all papers be with one senior co-author (at
least before you find a job and get tenure)
§ But even after => people tend to treat junior coauthors as
glorified RAs
§ Only ONE single-authored paper: JMP
 § Seminars are crucial
§ Workshops with longer presentations and discussants
are much more useful than large conferences with
short presentations
§ Take the feedback very seriously
§ Always take an opportunity to talk about your work
with your colleagues visiting from other schools
§ Sign up to meet big-shot speakers as well
Presentations § Attend seminars of good people (to learn from them)
and your colleagues (reciprocity)
§ Use job market period to learn what people are working
on nowadays
§ Do not ignore the job-market presentations, note where
these people find jobs
§ Work on the presentation should take a long time
§ Always, even when present for the 5th time, prepare
 § Look through general-interest journals
(top 9)
§ Find recently published and forthcoming
How to learn papers with similar topic / set up /
methodology
the craft:
imitation § Study the way it is done
§ Download and study the replication
package (especially from the journals
that have the data editor)
 § Maintain full replication package for every draft
§ It needs to automatize and annotate everything
§ Study the AEA Data and Code Availability Policy
§ This is best practice, it is good to learn from it

Full replication § Chances are you’d be surprised

§ It is much easier to develop your replication package
package at all while you are working on the paper, than ex-post
times § Saves time, effort, and a lot of nerves
§ Reference properly all data at their first mention

§ It will also help when you get R&R

§ people tend to forget what they have done, while the
paper is awaiting the review in a journal
 § Can not publish if you do not submit
§ => Submit
Publishing: § The best possible outcome:
simple truths § R&R
§ Papers never get accepted at first
submission
 § It is tough and it does not get easier with
age/experience
§ Yet, one needs to work on developing thicker
skin
• Papers do get rejected; this is a normal part of
an academic life
Getting a § The absolute super stars have papers
rejection rejected
§ So, breath deeply and move on
§ Do not complain and write back to the editor
after the rejection, as a rule
§ Can complain only in extraordinary circumstances
§ This could arrive only after you get experience
publishing well
 Getting rejections
§ There are no useless referee reports
§ Even if your paper is brutally rejected (and you think,
unfairly), try to get some information from the reports
§ If the referees got it all wrong => this means that you
explained it badly => re-write clearer

§ The probability of getting the same referee is rather

high next time

Feedback from § Be responsive before submitting elsewhere after a rejection

a rejection § Do not re-write at all only if you get: “The paper is not
enough of a contribution for this level journal,
otherwise, it is absolutely fine”
§ Address the major points to the extend possible
§ Do not work on minor points after a rejection, especially if
time-consuming
§ Unless they are easy to fix (do everything that is easy to fix)
§ Unless they are about poor writing, which is actually not
minor
 § If your paper is desk-rejected, send it off
immediately
§ After making sure that the introduction is
actually understandable
§ In most cases, desk-rejections happen because
Desk-rejections of the topic and size of contribution
§ Thus, not because of things you can improve in a
revision

§ At general-interest journals rates of desk-

rejections vary between 50% and 80%
 RR
§ If you got an RR, no matter how harsh the language
of the editor and the referees is, this is a great news
§ This is the best possible outcome
§ If you feel offended/frustrated/hurt by referees’
comments, cool off for a couple of days, maybe
R&R even a week, then try to read the reports with the
constructive mood
§ Remember, referees’ job is to criticize, so they do
just that
§ When you serve as a referee => remember always to be
polite, non-offensive, non-judgemental
 RR not to postpone the revision
§ It is important
§ Get to it right away
§ editors may change
§ subject may get out of fashion
§ referees may become unavailable, and others may ask
you for other things
R&R: § other people can write and publish a better paper
timing § Even if the review takes 7 months, you are
expected to revise and resubmit much sooner
§ More generally: always work on the paper that is
closest to being published
§ as publications are the only real measurement of
output, which is crucial for your career
 RR
§ Essential part of work on the paper is after R&R
§ Could be more than before submission
§ Work very, very hard on the revision
§ Never take feedback lightly
§ Think very hard about each point raised
§ Try all you can
§ Often need to collect more data, which seems impossible at the first

R&R: glance…

§ Write a very detailed letter with point-by-point response

Work and § respond in detail to every comment of every referee and the editor

Responses 1
§ although, you don’t have to accept them all
§ Your goal is to convince the editor and the referees:
§ that you took seriously ALL the comments
§ that it lead to a substantial improvement of the paper
§ It is also useful to write a summary of the most important changes
you made (in addition to point-by-point responses to them)
§ Often there are many-page responses, so it is easy to get lost
§ And different referees may pick up different points
§ So, the summary helps to navigate though the main changes
 RR
§ If you think that the paper does not benefit from new results (from
analyses requested by the referee), add them to the response letter,
and just mention in a footnote
§ But, most of the time, they are worthy of at least appendix

R&R: § In a rare case, when the suggestions of two referees are conflicting

Work and § Explain to the editor and both referees why are you following one, and
not the other
Responses 2 § Always, follow guidance of the editor
§ Your responses to specific critiques should refer to relevant page
numbers and tables and figures in the revised manuscript when
appropriate
 § The tone of the response should be respectful and
appreciative
§ Arguing with or criticizing referees is counterproductive,
calmly and clearly explain our point

R&R: § if the referee is not right, say that you were not clear in the
previous draft and this time you clarified it
Work and § The referees and the editor should get credit for
Responses 3 helping you improve the paper, which (almost) always
is the case

§ Do not be afraid to re-write the text completely to

streamline it
 § If you find a mistake in the first version, correct
the mistake and be sure to candidly address the
issue (and its implications) in your response to the
editors and reviewers

R&R: § Do not try to hide it!

Work and § Editors generally do not like complications, so do

not write back asking for clarification on how to
Responses 4 revise
§ Except of the extraordinary circumstances that
editor and referees are giving you internally
inconsistent feedback and you cannot sort it out on
your own
 § Treat it as R&R
§ Especially, if this is in the top 5 journal – you
absolutely have to try again
§ One should not spoil chances (there are only a few
that each paper has)
§ This is a strong signal that the editor is willing to
Reject-with- reconsider
door-ajar § But the revision should be very very drastic so that
you are sure that you can change the opinion of the
referees and the editor

§ Do not put this on your CV or website, just work to

get a proper R&R
§ which is also not a guarantee of any kind
 § Try to write papers that make substantial contributions
§ Why work so much for less of an added value?
§ Then, always start with submission to a top 5
§ Provided that the contribution is great, of course
§ Do not sit on a paper
§ If you are not going to work on it in the next two months, send
it off
Submissions § Of course, better to revise it first, as we discussed
§ Never treat a journal submission as just a chance to get
some good comments on your paper
§ Get comments from seminars, friends, and colleagues before
submitting

§ Presenting your work is important both for comments and

for visibility/recognition
 § You need to aim at having 5 very good papers
submitted (or about to be submitted) at every
point in time
Law of Large § It is hard, but this is the way to go, as LLN than
Numbers works for you
§ If you have a super-excellent paper, its chances
to get in any single top 5 journal are about 10%
 § Economics: use cover letter to flag any potential requests
for exemption from Open Data and Code Availability
Policy
§ Could be a problem if not done from the beginning
§ Do not summarize the paper in more than one sentence
§ (if at all – nobody reads this)

Communication § Non-economics (Science / Nature) talk about the

with the journal contribution in the cover letter

§ Never send the same or very related paper to a journal
at submission that rejected it once
§ This is a very serious crime, likely punishable by life ban on
submission

§ Anything involving human subjects requires now a pre-

registration (with a PAP) and IRB – need to be cited in the
opening footnote of the paper
 § At the end, you will have to figure it out yourself
Good luck § Always seek advice of your advisor and of senior faculty
and § Advisors tend to thin of themselves as such even after one
good work gets tenure…
 § Daniel S. Hamermesh “The Young Economist's Guide to
Professional Etiquette”, The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Vol. 6, No. 1. (Winter, 1992), pp. 169-179.

Useful, although § Daniel S. Hamermesh “SIX DECADES OF TOP

rather old ECONOMICS PUBLISHING: WHO AND HOW?”, NBER

Working Paper 18635, 2012
references
§ Cochrane’s paper “Writing Tips for PhD students”:
https://www.fma.org/assets/docs/membercontent/writin
g_cochrane.pdf