Recently passed a year of editing (well, slightly more at REHO) so wanted to share some #EconTwitter thoughts on what I've learned (take them with a grain of salt, as there are many more experienced editors out there!)
For authors: generally, cover letters can be extremely brief unless you are bringing something very specific to my attention. If the cover letter repeats what's in the intro, not necessary (I will look at the intro!)
For referees: please respond to requests (saying no is fine, a rapid no is better than a ghosting) Recs of other referees are a nice bonus. A short report that is on time or close to it is also very welcome (you don't have to wait until you have 2 whole pages written)
For authors: for a huge number of the papers I read, I can't easily tell what is different compared to existing papers (that's true both for those who cite a lot of other related papers, + those that don't - but I know the papers are there). This is hugely important
For authors: please be detailed in your response to R&Rs. Don't just refer vaguely to a section of the paper (when that happens, often it means the comment wasn't really addressed there). It's OK to disagree with some comments + not implement them; be specific as to why
Reflection for myself: I find it very helpful to everyone to provide detailed guidance on R&Rs (highlighting comments that are important + less often, some that I don't think are important or correct). Helpful to me to structure thoughts + I hope is helpful to authors
Another reflection for authors + myself: the faster you return the revision, the more likely I (and presumably others) are to remember the paper well + thus proceed quickly. What can I say, I'm aging :) Always happy to see revisions back within 2-3 mos
Final reflection for me: this is an amazing experience that I'm grateful to have + I have learned a lot. Going to follow up w/some of the most exciting papers over the last year from REHO and CER (which will generally not be papers I edited since I'm new!). . .stay tuned!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
here are 10 exciting articles from each journal #EconTwitter. Today REHO (note not articles I personally was the managing editor for); CER tomorrow
2/ link.springer.com/article/10.100…
Dave + Yang: Evidence that working in a more intensive occupation during pregnancy ⬆️ probability of adverse birth outcome
This week's cool young researcher is Fatima Aqeel at Colgate University who works on questions related to gender, intimate partner violence + women's employment #EconTwitter sites.google.com/view/fatima-aq…
One paper currently R&R at WBER analyzes a reform in Pakistan in which admissions' criteria at medical schools were equalized for men + women, leading to an ⬆️ in labor force participation by women medical graduates + graduates overall
As I wrapped up another slew of referee reports this week (no worries, I actually love refereeing + learn a lot from it!) I thought it might be fun to do a little 🧵on my most common comments as a referee (and now, as an editor) - mainly for empirical papers
1: I'm on page 5 of the intro; what is this paper about? Take pity on us, your referees are people too. You should specifically explain what THIS paper is about + is doing by page two, at latest.
2: Here are other papers, how is this one different? Highlight the existing lit (thoroughly) +specifically note what your paper adds. Lots of debate over whether or not to do "this paper is the 1st", but you don't have to claim you're the first to note your contribution.
1/ Enjoyed seminar by @Susan_Athey at Georgetown yesterday presenting paper about the effects of contraceptive counseling + discounts in Cameroon, + an overview of process of running an adaptive RCT.
Short #EconTwitter 🧵 about the latter, for interested applied researchers
3/ High-level points: goal of an adaptive RCT is to automate process of refinement (run trial comparing multiple treatments to control; identify the best one; test it further; etc.) Designed to replace human time w/computing time as it runs
Follow-up 🧵. First as usual, I aim to be interdisciplinary, but can't be comprehensive; a bias toward econ in these threads. Adding links + cites always welcome.
2/ Second, bc I'm focusing mostly on econ, economists have a comp advantage in analyzing how policymakers use econ (as opposed to other types of knowledge). Hopefully other disciplines are working in parallel - we should def understand how policymakers work w/other evidence.
3/ Free research idea: an interdisciplinary team should run a study analyzing how policymakers respond to multiple forms of knowledge and analyze it interdisciplinarily. Would love to work on this myself!
1/ Wanted to do an #EconTwitter 🧵 on a new + important topic that's growing in the literature: rigorous evidence about how policy-makers use + respond to evidence! Most of these papers are very recent, many still WP
2/ One published in AER 2021 by @HjortJ@dianamoreira_sb Rao and Santini; an experiment w.mayors of 2,150 Brazilian municipalities; they find mayors are WTP for evidence, and update priors upon receipt; value large samples more, but not dev country studies aeaweb.org/articles?id=10…
3/ Relatedly, they show that mayors briefed on the effectiveness of one policy (tax reminder letters) are 10 pp more likely to adopt it