Profile picture
Jake Vigdor @JakeVigdor
, 10 tweets, 2 min read Read on Twitter
Economics has become the laughingstock of academic publication. Common question asked by scholars in almost any other field: "It takes you *how long* to get a paper published?"

How do we fix it?

Some suggestions...
Initial review: ratchet up expectations for peer reviewers. It does not take four weeks to read a manuscript and write a report. Conditional on no desk rejection, economics journals take weeks longer to reach a first decision.
Revise and Resubmit: conversations that should be going on in published literature are instead taking place in private, between authors and reviewers.

Ellison (2002) notes that R&Rs were once used sparingly and were in fact a mark of shame.

One option: eliminate R&Rs entirely.
Less radical option: limit referees to one shot at the paper. Set expectations that R&R requests will involve if...then statements making the future transparent:

e.g., "if the results are robust to adding controls for x, y, z, the revision will be accepted."
Post-acceptance: jettison the anachronisms of the print era. What's the point of having an "online appendix" if ~100% of readers access the article online in the first place? Lag between acceptance and publication should be no more than 2-3 weeks for typesetting/proof review.
Here's a radical one: allow parallel submission. Journals currently demand monopoly power over a manuscript for as many years as it takes to render a decision. Require authors to disclose multiple submission & to withdraw from one journal as soon as another accepts it.
Competition is good, right? Incentives matter, right?

Parallel submission is the norm for academic book manuscripts and let's face it, economics articles are looking more like books all the time.
Some journals require authors to disclose conflicts of interest. That's good.

I've never been asked to disclose conflicts of interest as a reviewer, or as an editor. Journals should ask, and should inform authors if their MS was reviewed by a conflicted referee. Readers too.
Readers should also be informed when a published manuscript was handled by a non-"arm's length" editor.

In an ideal world, this would never happen.
Currently @AEAjournals allow editorial correspondence to be forwarded from one journal to another. Why not automatically forward rejected manuscripts for immediate consideration, based on initial reports? Acceptance need not be binding on the author.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Jake Vigdor
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!