Syndicate content

peer-reviewed publication process

Towards policy irrelevance? Thoughts on the experimental arms race and Chris Blattman’s predictions

David McKenzie's picture

Chris Blattman posted an excellent (and surprisingly viral) post yesterday with the title “why I worry experimental social science is headed in the wrong direction”. I wanted to share my thoughts on his predictions.
He writes:
Take experiments. Every year the technical bar gets raised. Some days my field feels like an arms race to make each experiment more thorough and technically impressive, with more and more attention to formal theories, structural models, pre-analysis plans, and (most recently) multiple hypothesis testing. The list goes on. In part we push because want to do better work. Plus, how else to get published in the best places and earn the respect of your peers?
It seems to me that all of this is pushing social scientists to produce better quality experiments and more accurate answers. But it’s also raising the size and cost and time of any one experiment.

Towards Transparency in journal turnaround times

David McKenzie's picture

The impetus for this post comes from a couple of recent experiences. First, I got copied on the letter sent to an author containing a decision from the editor from a paper that I had refereed so long ago that I had forgotten even refereeing it. Second, every now and then I have conversations with colleagues about where to send papers, which for most journals rely on anecdotes/sample sizes of a couple of experiences (e.g. what is journal X like for turnaround time – well, the one paper I sent there recently took 10 months to get a report, etc.).

Q&A with Larry Katz, editor of QJE

Berk Ozler's picture

The peer-reviewed publication process is something many researchers go through, whether as authors or referees. But we are not always sure how to deal with various decisions, especially earlier in our careers. So, we decided to ask Lawrence Katz, editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, his views on a bunch of things, including some advice for prospective authors and referees alike.