(1/11)
Thread about the publication process in Economics. It is inefficient. It probably made sense pre-Internet, but it is clearly antiquated by now.
It may not be the best solution, but I have a proposal. And I'm curious to hear other proposals from #EconTwitter
Thread about the publication process in Economics. It is inefficient. It probably made sense pre-Internet, but it is clearly antiquated by now.
It may not be the best solution, but I have a proposal. And I'm curious to hear other proposals from #EconTwitter
(2/11)
Let's start with the problem: the typical paper gets published after being rejected by many journals. Authors start aiming higher than expected, and if it doesn't go through, eventually they start "going down" to less selective journals. This is incredibly inefficient.
Let's start with the problem: the typical paper gets published after being rejected by many journals. Authors start aiming higher than expected, and if it doesn't go through, eventually they start "going down" to less selective journals. This is incredibly inefficient.
(3/11)
This sequential process means that a paper may take several years until it is finally accepted, mostly because it is waiting for editors and referees to do their job. So many referee reports and decision letters are a monumental waste of time for the editors and referees.
This sequential process means that a paper may take several years until it is finally accepted, mostly because it is waiting for editors and referees to do their job. So many referee reports and decision letters are a monumental waste of time for the editors and referees.
(4/11) Indeed, the reason why referee reports take so long to begin with is precisely because the referees are being bombarded by an inefficiently high number of referee requests.
Let me propose an alternative system. N>1 journals collaborate to handle joint submissions.
Let me propose an alternative system. N>1 journals collaborate to handle joint submissions.
(5/11)
Step 1: Along with the paper, the authors should submit their rank-order preferences over journals: they prefer journal 1 the best, journal 2 second, etc.
Step 2: The "chief editor" would invite 5 referees.
Step 1: Along with the paper, the authors should submit their rank-order preferences over journals: they prefer journal 1 the best, journal 2 second, etc.
Step 2: The "chief editor" would invite 5 referees.
(6/11)
In addition to their reports, each referee will be asked to make N recommendations: whether the paper is suitable for publication in journal 1 (in the typical scale, ranging from "Definitively Reject" to "Accept As Is"), whether the paper is suitable for journal 2, etc.
In addition to their reports, each referee will be asked to make N recommendations: whether the paper is suitable for publication in journal 1 (in the typical scale, ranging from "Definitively Reject" to "Accept As Is"), whether the paper is suitable for journal 2, etc.
(7/11)
Step 3: The referee reports are shared with the editor of the journal that the author ranked first. The editor can decide whether to invite a revision, or reject.
Step 3: The referee reports are shared with the editor of the journal that the author ranked first. The editor can decide whether to invite a revision, or reject.
(8/11) If the editor invites the revision, we reached the end of the process (unless the paper is eventually rejected, in which case we go to the next step). If the editor rejects, then the referee reports are sent to the editor of the journal that the author ranked second.
(9/11) And we repeat this process until we exhaust the N journals.
Some may say that authors will not get a chance to make changes to the article and "roll the dice" in another outlet.
Some may say that authors will not get a chance to make changes to the article and "roll the dice" in another outlet.
(10/11) However, I think that is would be a good thing: this system would give incentives to the authors to work really hard on their paper before submitting it. The referees would find themselves with significantly fewer referee requests on their inboxes.
(11/11) As a result, they can turn in the reports a lot quicker, and spend more time writing more helpful reports.
By the way, I think the @AEAjournals could lead the way with N=6.
End of thread.
By the way, I think the @AEAjournals could lead the way with N=6.
End of thread.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
