Even at my indicate inward life, the minute of publishing an academic newspaper is a 1 to celebrate, as well as a minute to reflect.
The New-Keynesian Liquidity Trap is published inward the Journal of Monetary Economics -- online, impress volition endure inward December. Elsevier (the publisher) allows gratuitous access as well as gratuitous 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 piece yous can!
The newspaper is portion of the 2012-2013 conversation on monetary as well as financial policies when involvement rates are stuck at aught -- 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 notice strongly cause the economic scheme with promises to handgrip involvement rates depression inward the future. Curiously, the farther inward the hereafter the promise, the to a greater extent than stimulative. Fiscal policy, fifty-fifty totally wasted spending, tin give notice receive got huge multipliers. Broken windows as well as hurricanes are expert for the economy. And though cost stickiness is the fundamental work inward the economy, lowering cost 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 respond they give comes downwards to an almost arbitrary choice of which solution to pick. The criterion choice implies a downward bound inward the cost degree when the recession starts, which requires the regime to heighten taxes to pay off a windfall to regime bondholders. Picking equilibria that don't receive got this cost degree jump, as well as don't require a bound to large financial surpluses (which nosotros don't see) I overturn all the predictions. Sorry, no magic. If yous desire a amend economy, yous receive got to piece of work on supply, non demand.
Today's thoughts, though, are nigh the land of academic publication.
I wrote the newspaper inward the outpouring 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 with youngster 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 inward general. Parts of this procedure went much faster than usual. Three months for a total evaluation at QJE is fast. And 1 time accepted, my newspaper sped through the JME. Another twelvemonth or 2 inward 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 truly counts is average fourth dimension to publication inward the magazine organization every bit a whole.
Lessons as well as thoughts?
Anyone doing inquiry on aught bound inward new-Keynesian models inward the in conclusion 4 years, as well as carrying on this conversation, interacted with the working newspaper version of my newspaper (if at all), non the published version. Any piece of work relying exclusively on published inquiry is hopelessly out of date.
Interest rates lifted off the aught bound quite a piece ago, so inward the policy conversation this publication at best goes into the shelf of ideas to endure revisited if the side past times side recession repeats the in conclusion 1 with an extended menstruum of aught 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 inward rock for hereafter generations. (Some lucky papers that move inward to graduate reading lists to a greater extent than than 5-10 years afterward their behavior on volition endure read inward terminal form, but non most.)
And this newspaper is perfected. The comments of nine real abrupt reviewers as well as 3 thoughtful editors receive got improved it substantially, along with at dozens of drafts. Papers are a conversation, as well as it does choose a village. The newspaper likewise benefitted from extensive comments at workshops, as well as several long e-mail conversations with colleagues.
The passage of fourth dimension has helped every bit well. When I exceed away dorsum to a newspaper afterward 6 months to a year, I observe all sorts of things that tin give notice endure clearer. Moreover, inward the fourth dimension betwixt start submission as well as in conclusion revision, I wrote 4 novel papers inward the same line, as well as insights from those permeate dorsum to this one.
So, inward the end, though the basic points are the same, the exposition is much better. It's a haiku. Every discussion counts.
But such perfection comes at a large cost, inward the fourth dimension of editors as well as referees, my time, as well as most of all the cost that the conversation has right away moved on.
The amount length of nine referee reports, 4 reports past times 3 editors, is much longer than the paper. Each 1 did a serious job, as well as clearly spent at to the lowest degree a solar daytime 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 endeavor truly worthwhile? I recall 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 inward portion on numbers as well as placement of publications. For that purpose, timeliness of publication is less of a problem, but with a half-dozen twelvemonth tenure clock at many places as well as 5 twelvemonth lags, timeliness of acceptance the lineament rating is a large problem. The sorting as well as branding portion isn't working that good either. But having journals outsource lineament evaluation was ever an imperfect institution. Maybe nosotros should only receive got star ratings instead -- seriously, start upwards a website devoted to crowd-sourcing working newspaper evaluation. Or, mayhap tenure committees volition receive got to truly start reading papers. I don't recall the journals encounter this every bit their head portion either. They're ready to issue papers, non estimate people's tenure, so improving journals every bit a tenure granting machinery volition endure a difficult sell.
There is some expert intelligence that this information indicate represents, relative to land of magazine publishing 15-20 years ago. (See Glenn Ellison's superb "The slowdown inward the economic science publishing process," JSTOR, undated, 1 of my proudest moments every bit a JPE editor.)
Journals had gotten inward to a oestrus of bespeak for circular afterward circular of revisions. Now at that topographic point is a potent ethic of either rejecting the paper, or doing 1 circular of revisions as well as so either publishing with youngster 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 portion of the ground why at that topographic point were endless revisions. This modify is real good. Referees receive got piddling 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 inward a expert seat to observe the correct repose 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 turn down came at the JME. But the AER as well as QJE editors were non impressed inward the terminate past times the paper, as well as the JME editor was.
So, with this land of affairs inward mind, how powerfulness nosotros all piece of work to improve journals as well as the publication process?
I volition choose 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 1 reason, to the extent that they exceed away on to lose the communication function, people won't ship articles there. Already yous tin give notice notice that afterward tenure, to a greater extent than as well as to a greater extent than economists start publishing inward conference volumes, invited papers, edited volumes, as well as other outlets. (blogs!) The fraction willing to choose on this project of dearest for magazine publication declines rapidly with age. Research productivity as well as inventiveness does non choose quite such a parallel decline. (I hope!)
Always the free-market economist, I banker's complaint that conference volumes, edited volumes, as well as solicited papers inward regular journals seem to endure salubrious as well as increasing, which is a natural answer to magazine slowdown. This is a way to teach papers inward impress to a greater extent than quickly. In the early on days of the network I had a dominion never to issue inward volumes, every bit they disappeared to library shelves as well as could non endure industrial plant 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 late solicited my "Macro-finance" essay which thence sped through publication. My active editors are likewise ofttimes taking a to a greater extent than active role inward soliciting promising working papers. This helps to pause the editor-to-paper match. But this isn't an ideal land 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, at that topographic point is a lot of whining that journals should practise x y as well as z to speed things up. I start with what yous as well as I tin give notice do. It is: practise unto others every bit yous would receive got them practise unto you. If yous complain nigh boring journals, well, how rapidly practise you plough 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 with the paper, as well as create upwards one's hear if yous volition referee it or not. If not, say so that day. If yous tin give notice 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 tending the editor past times finding a amend fit, as well as practise it correct a way.
If yous concord to practise a report, practise it inside a week. If yous can't practise it this week, you're non probable to endure able to practise it 5 weeks from now, as well as say no.
More suggestions:
Journals insist that yous exclusively ship to 1 magazine at a time. And so expression a twelvemonth or to a greater extent than to hear what they desire to practise with it. Especially right away that nosotros are moving towards the editor-centric system, as well as the fundamental inquiry is a check with editor's tastes, why non allow magazine editors portion reviewer advice as well as compete for who wants to issue 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 set upwards with this. It's the way that the meridian journals teach the gild current of best papers. Why doesn't some other magazine say, yous tin give notice ship it to us at the same fourth dimension every bit yous ship it to the AER. We'll abide by their priority, but if they don't desire it nosotros volition receive got start right. The AER almost does this with its acre journals. But the JME could teach to a greater extent than amend papers faster past times competing on this dimension.
The journals say they practise this to save the value of their reviewer time. But with shared or opened upwards reviews, that declaration falls apart.
We advocate contest elsewhere. Why non inward our ain profession?
Update: An e-mail correspondent brings upwards a expert point:
The New-Keynesian Liquidity Trap is published inward the Journal of Monetary Economics -- online, impress volition endure inward December. Elsevier (the publisher) allows gratuitous access as well as gratuitous 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 piece yous can!
The newspaper is portion of the 2012-2013 conversation on monetary as well as financial policies when involvement rates are stuck at aught -- 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 notice strongly cause the economic scheme with promises to handgrip involvement rates depression inward the future. Curiously, the farther inward the hereafter the promise, the to a greater extent than stimulative. Fiscal policy, fifty-fifty totally wasted spending, tin give notice receive got huge multipliers. Broken windows as well as hurricanes are expert for the economy. And though cost stickiness is the fundamental work inward the economy, lowering cost 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 respond they give comes downwards to an almost arbitrary choice of which solution to pick. The criterion choice implies a downward bound inward the cost degree when the recession starts, which requires the regime to heighten taxes to pay off a windfall to regime bondholders. Picking equilibria that don't receive got this cost degree jump, as well as don't require a bound to large financial surpluses (which nosotros don't see) I overturn all the predictions. Sorry, no magic. If yous desire a amend economy, yous receive got to piece of work on supply, non demand.
Today's thoughts, though, are nigh the land of academic publication.
I wrote the newspaper inward the outpouring 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 with youngster 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 inward general. Parts of this procedure went much faster than usual. Three months for a total evaluation at QJE is fast. And 1 time accepted, my newspaper sped through the JME. Another twelvemonth or 2 inward 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 truly counts is average fourth dimension to publication inward the magazine organization every bit a whole.
Lessons as well as thoughts?
- Academic magazine publication is non a useful portion of communication alongside researchers or the communication betwixt inquiry as well as policy.
Anyone doing inquiry on aught bound inward new-Keynesian models inward the in conclusion 4 years, as well as carrying on this conversation, interacted with the working newspaper version of my newspaper (if at all), non the published version. Any piece of work relying exclusively on published inquiry is hopelessly out of date.
Interest rates lifted off the aught bound quite a piece ago, so inward the policy conversation this publication at best goes into the shelf of ideas to endure revisited if the side past times side recession repeats the in conclusion 1 with an extended menstruum of aught 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 receive got exceed away the archive,
the ark, the library, the identify where final, as well as perfected versions of papers are carved inward rock for hereafter generations. (Some lucky papers that move inward to graduate reading lists to a greater extent than than 5-10 years afterward their behavior on volition endure read inward terminal form, but non most.)
And this newspaper is perfected. The comments of nine real abrupt reviewers as well as 3 thoughtful editors receive got improved it substantially, along with at dozens of drafts. Papers are a conversation, as well as it does choose a village. The newspaper likewise benefitted from extensive comments at workshops, as well as several long e-mail conversations with colleagues.
The passage of fourth dimension has helped every bit well. When I exceed away dorsum to a newspaper afterward 6 months to a year, I observe all sorts of things that tin give notice endure clearer. Moreover, inward the fourth dimension betwixt start submission as well as in conclusion revision, I wrote 4 novel papers inward the same line, as well as insights from those permeate dorsum to this one.
So, inward the end, though the basic points are the same, the exposition is much better. It's a haiku. Every discussion counts.
But such perfection comes at a large cost, inward the fourth dimension of editors as well as referees, my time, as well as most of all the cost that the conversation has right away moved on.
The amount length of nine referee reports, 4 reports past times 3 editors, is much longer than the paper. Each 1 did a serious job, as well as clearly spent at to the lowest degree a solar daytime 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 endeavor truly worthwhile? I recall 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 inward portion on numbers as well as placement of publications. For that purpose, timeliness of publication is less of a problem, but with a half-dozen twelvemonth tenure clock at many places as well as 5 twelvemonth lags, timeliness of acceptance the lineament rating is a large problem. The sorting as well as branding portion isn't working that good either. But having journals outsource lineament evaluation was ever an imperfect institution. Maybe nosotros should only receive got star ratings instead -- seriously, start upwards a website devoted to crowd-sourcing working newspaper evaluation. Or, mayhap tenure committees volition receive got to truly start reading papers. I don't recall the journals encounter this every bit their head portion either. They're ready to issue papers, non estimate people's tenure, so improving journals every bit a tenure granting machinery volition endure a difficult sell.
There is some expert intelligence that this information indicate represents, relative to land of magazine publishing 15-20 years ago. (See Glenn Ellison's superb "The slowdown inward the economic science publishing process," JSTOR, undated, 1 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 1 circular as well as upwards or out.
Journals had gotten inward to a oestrus of bespeak for circular afterward circular of revisions. Now at that topographic point is a potent ethic of either rejecting the paper, or doing 1 circular of revisions as well as so either publishing with youngster 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 portion of the ground why at that topographic point were endless revisions. This modify is real good. Referees receive got piddling 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 inward a expert seat to observe the correct repose 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 turn down came at the JME. But the AER as well as QJE editors were non impressed inward the terminate past times the paper, as well as the JME editor was.
So, with this land of affairs inward mind, how powerfulness nosotros all piece of work to improve journals as well as the publication process?
I volition choose 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 1 reason, to the extent that they exceed away on to lose the communication function, people won't ship articles there. Already yous tin give notice notice that afterward tenure, to a greater extent than as well as to a greater extent than economists start publishing inward conference volumes, invited papers, edited volumes, as well as other outlets. (blogs!) The fraction willing to choose on this project of dearest for magazine publication declines rapidly with age. Research productivity as well as inventiveness does non choose quite such a parallel decline. (I hope!)
Always the free-market economist, I banker's complaint that conference volumes, edited volumes, as well as solicited papers inward regular journals seem to endure salubrious as well as increasing, which is a natural answer to magazine slowdown. This is a way to teach papers inward impress to a greater extent than quickly. In the early on days of the network I had a dominion never to issue inward volumes, every bit they disappeared to library shelves as well as could non endure industrial plant 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 late solicited my "Macro-finance" essay which thence sped through publication. My active editors are likewise ofttimes taking a to a greater extent than active role inward soliciting promising working papers. This helps to pause the editor-to-paper match. But this isn't an ideal land 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, at that topographic point is a lot of whining that journals should practise x y as well as z to speed things up. I start with what yous as well as I tin give notice do. It is: practise unto others every bit yous would receive got them practise unto you. If yous complain nigh boring journals, well, how rapidly practise you plough 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 with the paper, as well as create upwards one's hear if yous volition referee it or not. If not, say so that day. If yous tin give notice 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 tending the editor past times finding a amend fit, as well as practise it correct a way.
If yous concord to practise a report, practise it inside a week. If yous can't practise it this week, you're non probable to endure able to practise it 5 weeks from now, as well as say no.
More suggestions:
- Reuse referee reports
Do nosotros truly demand nine referee reports to evaluate 1 paper? I ever offering editors of journals to whom I ship rejected papers the choice of using the existing referee reports, along with my answer every bit to how I receive got incorporated or non their suggestions. Nobody has ever taken me upwards on this offer. Why not? Especially right away 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 topographic point to issue papers.
Why non opened upwards refereeing? The report, as well as author's response, exceed away to a populace repository that others tin give notice see. Why non allow anyone comment on papers? Authors tin give notice respond. Often the editor doesn't know who the best someone is to referee a paper. Maybe a conference discussant has a expert insight. At to the lowest degree 1 official reviewer could practise goodness from collecting such information. Some scientific discipline journals practise this.
Some people would loathe this. OK, but mayhap that should endure a choice. Fast as well as public, or boring as well as private.
While we're at it, what about
- Simultaneous submission. Competition (heavens!)
Journals insist that yous exclusively ship to 1 magazine at a time. And so expression a twelvemonth or to a greater extent than to hear what they desire to practise with it. Especially right away that nosotros are moving towards the editor-centric system, as well as the fundamental inquiry is a check with editor's tastes, why non allow magazine editors portion reviewer advice as well as compete for who wants to issue 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 set upwards with this. It's the way that the meridian journals teach the gild current of best papers. Why doesn't some other magazine say, yous tin give notice ship it to us at the same fourth dimension every bit yous ship it to the AER. We'll abide by their priority, but if they don't desire it nosotros volition receive got start right. The AER almost does this with its acre journals. But the JME could teach to a greater extent than amend papers faster past times competing on this dimension.
The journals say they practise this to save the value of their reviewer time. But with shared or opened upwards reviews, that declaration falls apart.
We advocate contest elsewhere. Why non inward our ain profession?
Update: An e-mail correspondent brings upwards a expert point:
- Journals should endure the forum where competing views are hashed out.
They should endure portion of the "process of formalizing good argued dissimilar 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 inward the journals] The neverending refereeing [and editing as well as publishing] procedure is shutting downwards the conversation."
When I read good argued papers that I disagree with, I tend to write "I disagree with only nigh everything inward this paper. But it's a well-argued representative for a mutual indicate of view. If my devastating study does non convince the author, the newspaper should endure published, as well as I should write upwards my objections every bit a answer paper."
