How to publish in top journals? (zz)

http://www.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ555/choi/
发信人: srrbyes (out+of+date), 信区: Economics
标　题: How to publish at top journals, by Choi
发信站: Unknown Space - 未名空间 (Wed Feb 23 12:09:53 2005) WWW-POST

How to publish in top journals?

Kwan Choi

In response to popular demand, this brief note is provided for the benefit
of all academic authors. The original intent was to produce a book of advice,
but time is a scarce commodity and you may have to wait indefinitely for a
book-length summary.
This brief manual provides some useful suggestions for today’s
authors. The goal is to "foster the greatest good to the greatest number of
people."1 If this note is useful to you, please tell your friends about it. If
you follow most of these rules, the probability of obtaining tenure or
promotion may increase significantly. If most authors acquired the basic
skills mentioned here, they would then be competing in terms of the truth,
goodness, and beauty of their ideas, not in terms of cosmetic skills.
Disclaimer
Please note that the advice contained here may not necessarily
improve the chances that your research papers will be published. By
downloading or acquiring a copy of this guide, you agree that:
In no event shall the author be liable for any indirect, incidental,
collateral, exemplary, consequential, or special damages or losses arising out
of your use of rules suggested in this guide.
Note
1. The Urantia Book (p. 1488)
________________________________________
Introduction
Publishing technology has changed drastically in recent years. The
advent of the personal computers and laser printers has lowered the technical
barriers of publication. Economists are now producing more papers than they
were a couple of decades ago. Consequently, top journals are being inundated
with manuscripts.
Journal editors have become extremely risk averse; they are more
concerned with the risk of accepting low-quality articles than with the
possibility of rejecting good articles.

Purpose of this Manual
Ideally, the decision to publish should be based solely on the ideas
contained in the papers. In practice, the decision is affected by other
nonsubstantive and cosmetic factors. If all authors were equally skillful in
presenting their ideas, they would be competing essentially in terms of the
merit of ideas, rather than the art of presentation.
This manual will advise authors on how to prepare papers to improve
their chances for acceptance in top journals.
Why is the journal acceptance rate so low?
• Among the papers submitted to ranking journals, 1/3 or less receive
mildly favorable reports. (This generally depends on the quality of the
journal and the referees.) The rest do not receive favorable recommendations.
• If two referees are employed, the chance that a typical paper of
average quality will get a favorable recommendation from both referees is
about 11% (= 1/9).
• There is no such thing as good luck in publication. Painstaking work,
coupled with careful risk taking, is required for success.
All referees are not equal. Comments of a well-known referee weigh
more heavily than those of a lesser-known referee. You should be aware of
which referee is more important.
When a paper is rejected, the editors paid more attention to the
negative than the positive aspects of your paper.
If you eliminate or reduce the negative elements, the good ideas in
the paper will far overshadow the shortcomings and your paper is more likely
to be accepted.
Why is your acceptance rate lower than others?
• You may lack experience. However, this can be remedied.
• You may need to submit more papers. Volume also increases the
acceptance rate because of learning by doing.
• Identify the cause and act accordingly. There might be biases against
you based on race, sex, nationality, or schooling. For instance, if a
university journal has a reported acceptance rate of 10% but pre-allocates
half the space to its faculty and immediate students, your acceptance rate is
20% if you are in the preferred class, and 5% or lower if you are not.
• You may not be able to eliminate existing biases, but you can avoid
them.
________________________________________
References
The Chicago Manual of Style, The University of Chicago Press, 1982.
Holub, Hans Werner, Gottfried Tappeiner, and Veronika Eberharter,
"The Iron Law of Important Articles," Southern Economic Journal 58 (1991),
317-28.
Horowitz, Ira, "How to Publish Well and Often When You are Unlikely
to Contend for a Nobel Prize," Research Bulletin, Chinese University of Hong
Kong, Issue 3, November 1995.
Hudson, John, “Trends in Multi-Authored Papers in Economics,” Journal of
Economic Perspectives 10 (1996), 153-9.
Laband, David N. and Michael J. Piette, “Favoritism versus Search for Good
Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors,”
Journal of Political Economy 102 (1994), 194-203.
Liebowitz, S. J. and J. P. Palmer, "Assessing the Relative Impacts
of Economic Journals," Journal of Economic Literature 22 (1984), 77-88.
McCloskey, Donald, The Writing of Economics, Macmillan Publishing
Company, New York, 1987.
Nyaw, M. K. and Eden Yu, "Professor Douglas North's Research
Experience and Advice," Research Bulletin, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Issue 2, April 1995.
Urantia Foundation, The Urantia Book, 1955, Chicago.
________________________________________
General Publication Strategies
1. Diversify your research portfolio
o Average wait for an acceptance decision = 3 years.
o Average wait for a rejection = 6 to 8 months.
o Survival is more important than glory in the early stages of your career.
o Diversifying the research portfolio is particularly important during the
first five or six years of your teaching career when each publication counts
heavily. Diversify research topics for possible publication.
o If you have a solid hit in one area, then redouble your effort to establish
your name as an expert in that field before you move into another field.
o Writing several papers in a very narrow area is risky. It is like putting
all your eggs in one basket.
o Continuing to write papers in the same narrow area without clear evidence of
success is risky.
2. Concentrate on one or two fields
o Normally, you should not select more than two fields of specialization.
Research economies of scale often may require your undiluted attention in a
single field.
o Choose, at most, two or three focused areas within your field of
specialization. Then pursue those topics until you produce a couple of
publications.
o If you have published no papers in one area for three years, then consider
switching to another topic.
3. Generate one or two papers from your thesis
o You invested two or more years writing your thesis.
o Try to generate a couple of papers from the most important chapters of the
thesis. This is easier than writing a totally new paper from scratch.
o Work jointly with your advisor to help market your papers.
4. Maintain a stock of papers under review constantly
o If the acceptance rate of the top-ranking journals is 15%, one needs about 7
papers under review at all times to have one paper accepted per year at the
targeted journals.
o If your goal is to get 10 papers accepted in the first 5 years of your
career, you need about a dozen papers under review at all times.
o Half a dozen papers should be under review at all times for untenured
authors. This does not mean that you should write 7 new papers each year.
5. Don't put two good ideas in one paper
o Separate them into two papers.
o Do not try to put down everything you know about the subject in one paper.
What will you do next?
o As the paper's length increases beyond 15 pages, the chance of acceptance
shrinks geometrically.
o When a topic is appropriately split into two papers, the probability of
getting at least one of them accepted more than doubles.
o You also will get a paper accepted sooner.
o If x = original length, and p = probability of acceptance, then
p(x/2) = 2p(x) + , where  > 0 and x > 15 pages.
The alpha () factor:
 Editors like short papers.
 The chance that a referee will detect a mathematical error declines.
 Referees will return the report faster.
 The chance that a referee will misunderstand the paper also
decreases.
6. Approach different types of journals
o Sending all papers to top journals is risky.
o Sending all papers to low-quality journals also is unsatisfactory. You will
regret it when the papers are accepted!
o Your curriculum vitae should contain some publications in the top journals.
o Quantity of publications also is important.
o Having three papers in different journals is better than three in one
journal, if the relative quality of the journals is the same.
7. Write clearly
o The main assumptions and results should be explained clearly. If there are
many assumptions, present them together in one place. Do not bury them in long
paragraphs.
o Define every symbol when it is first introduced. Otherwise, the referees
will be frustrated, and you won't get a favorable report.
o If many symbols are introduced to present your model, it is a good idea to
define all symbols together and display them in one place so that the referees
would not waste time hunting for them.
o Clearly state the contributions of the paper, relative to the literature, in
the concluding remarks.
8. Learn word processing skills and master other relevant software
programs
o Be independent of secretaries. They do not work 24 hours a day.
o Word processing skills are particularly helpful when the amount of revision
is minimal.
o Researchers without computer skills will be an endangered species in this
century.
9. Scan current journals
o Keep up with the current literature (e.g., EconLit).
o Using the potential key words, search to see if others have written papers
on the same or similar subjects.
o By not duplicating what others have done, you will save time and effort.
o Subscribe to a couple of journals in your field of interest, rather than
general journals.
o General journals are not cost effective as a source of research information.
Fewer and fewer articles in general journals are relevant for your research.
o Utilize the libraries for other journals.
o Social Science Research Network features news about papers as soon as they
are accepted; you can have the latest information about publications in your
field.
10. Present papers at conferences before submission
o Present your papers at regional, national, or international conferences. You
may get surprisingly valuable feedback.
o This also is an important way for you to become familiar with others working
in the same area.
o Presenting papers within one's department is not effective. Except in top
schools, most of the faculty in a typical department with 20 or fewer members
are not familiar with the subject, and with due respect to their expertise,
they generally are not qualified to make substantive comments on your topic.
11. Do not distribute unpublished papers to strangers (at big conferences)
o If you do, your desire to become well-known may be temporarily gratified,
but the penalty can be harsh later.
o Some people might steal your idea and submit a closely related paper sooner
than you do.
o You get no credit.
o Distributing papers is okay in a closed circle of researchers, where
everybody knows each other.
12. Only the tough get going
o One gets rejection letters more often than not. This is inevitable!
o Develop a thick skin and be a good loser. This game is not for the
faint-hearted. If you cannot swallow rejection easily, don't submit papers.
o A good paper deserves at least three chances at publication in ranking
journals.
o If you ignore a rejected paper more than one month, you are likely to lose
interest. Do something about it.
o Bad luck eventually comes to an end.
13. Get to know one hundred people active in your field
o There are about a hundred people in your field who are likely to be referees
of your papers.
o Prepare a list of one hundred active people in your main research areas. Try
to meet them within a five-year period.
o Present papers at, or at least attend, two professional meetings a year.
o When presenting papers or attending regional, national, or international
meetings, try to get to know these people. How? (Think!) This is your best
opportunity for networking.
14. Maintain contacts
o Maintain contacts with other economists via telephone, fax, or e-mail. Do
not send copies of your papers to them unless requested to do so.
o What to do when they don't respond? Think!
o You also need these contacts later: they can write letters of recommendation
when you seek promotion and tenure.
________________________________________
Articles and Books
15. A journal article is preferable to a book
o Don't publish a book, at least not before getting tenure.
o Readers find it easy to remember if your papers were published in journals
because they are often abbreviated like AER, JPE, RIE, etc. They might even
remember the years of publication.
o They won't remember your books, unless the titles are extremely short and
sexy.
Life of a publication
o The life of a book is about 1 to 2 years.
o The life of a journal article is about 10 years.
o Publishers will not spend much money to advertise your book because profit
margins are small.
o Accordingly, most economists do not know whether you published a book, let
alone know the title.
o Bragging to your colleagues about your recent book is like introducing
yourself by long names with 10 or more words.
o Authors who have published an article in the same journal feel friendly
toward you. It creates a bond among the authors.
o Book authors operate alone.
o Researchers know that books do not go through the refereeing process.
Weight of a publication
o Your department or division may not clearly specify quantified weights to
evaluate your research.
o But rest assured that they are there; a given number of papers in certain
journals or certain ranks, etc. These standards are developed by consensus,
and you can find these standards by checking the records of those who received
tenure recently.
o Journal rankings often are used to evaluate the quality of your research.
o All things considered, the following weights could be used:
 1 = an article in a good journal
 0.5 - 1 = a whole book, maybe 2 if it is very popular.
 0.1 = a chapter in a book someone else edited.
o Textbooks do not count.
o Handbooks and some special series might be treated like a journal because of
their long shelf life (10 + years).
o Do not give away your precious paper as a chapter of a regular book, unless
it appeals to your altruistic desire to help others.
16. A journal article first
o First, publish your original idea in an article.
o Then maybe in a book, not vice versa.
o Journals will not knowingly publish an article if the substance was
published in a book previously.
________________________________________
Collaboration
________________________________________
17. Cultivate coauthors
o Find seasoned coauthors with publication experience and share the glory.
o Working with your advisors is a good idea, at least for the first few years
after receiving a Ph.D.
o You have to become independent at some point, though.
o Acting alone is a risky strategy, especially for those just out of graduate
school.
o With seasoned coauthors, the probability of acceptance will likely more than
double.
o Through your coauthors, you may be introduced to an established group of
economists.
o You also may learn how to write better papers.
Weight of coauthored articles
o Whatever rankings are used, given the quality, the following weights may be
used more or less as a guide to estimate the overall impact of joint articles:

 1 = an article (sole author).
 0.75 = first author in a joint paper.
 0.7 = second author in a joint paper.
 0.5 = an author in a paper with three authors.
 1/n = four or more authors. (Don't do this, except in certain fields
[e.g., agricultural economics], where it is more acceptable. You will be
included in "et al.")
18. Make an agreement with coauthors ex ante
o It is best to divide up the work with coauthors ex ante. This minimizes the
chance of free riding when the paper is complete or accepted.
o Be considerate when determining the order of authors.
o To assure a long-term relationship, alternate the order of appearance,
especially when the contributions are roughly equal.
o If you insist on alphabetical order just because your name precedes the
others, they may not come back to you for further collaboration.
o Another practical idea: flip a coin.
19. Maintain collaboration
o If a personality conflict develops, collaboration does not work.
o It takes time and effort to cultivate relationship with coworkers. If you
have found a good working relationship, don't tamper with it to obtain small
gains.
o If you do seek small gains, it is difficult to restore a good relationship
should you change your mind later.
20. Be patient with inactive coauthors
o Be tolerant of your coauthors.
o Remember that the sum of subjective contributions of coauthors of a paper
always exceeds 100%.
o Removing an inactive coauthor from the paper may not give you peace of mind,
especially if it is done insensitively.
o Keep pace with your coauthors. If a coauthor does not contribute anything,
caution must be exercised. Often the animosity generated is not worth the
gain.
o If a joint work is being terminated because of unforeseen developments, make
it clear who holds the ownership of the disputed papers. This eliminates
untold misery later.
________________________________________
Choosing Topics
21. Do not waste time on dead or dying topics
o If your most recent references in a projected paper are ten years old, it
will be difficult to publish it. It is a dead issue. Do not start such a paper
(until you get tenure)!
o If the most recent references closely related to your paper are 5 years old,
it is a dying issue. Editors are reluctant to accept such papers, even if the
referees recommend publication.
o It is difficult for the editor to find suitable referees for outdated
topics.
o Your inability to find sufficient references indicates
 You have not read the literature.
 Others are not interested in the topic, hence, it is unlikely to get
published.
 No problem! Dig further.
o If the work is completed already, cite some papers that are more recent.
22. Do not write papers with breakthrough ideas at first
o Avoid writing about your breakthrough ideas, at least in the early stage of
your career, unless your mentor is the editor of a major journal.
o Papers with breakthrough ideas are not often published.
o Wait until you get tenure to tackle breakthrough ideas.
o "I told my own young colleagues that they should preferably start off with
the received wisdom with some changes until they get their tenure." -Douglas
North, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Economic Science (see Nyaw and Yu, 1995).
o If you do advance breakthrough ideas your papers will be rejected, and they
might reappear in a modified, clearly written paper by someone else later.
o After you are established, perhaps you can tackle breakthrough ideas, and
become better known, instead of publishing many papers with minor ideas.
o Or as you gain more experience, you may find that the ideas turn out to be
trivial.
23. Extend existing literature
o The bulk of papers published today are modifications of the existing
literature or tests of existing theories.
o Something in the paper must be original.
o Duplication is not an extension of knowledge.
24. Write something creative
o A journal's primary goal is to publish original ideas.
o A good journal is interested in disseminating new ideas, not in publishing
papers that elaborate some existing ideas or examine the implications of a
minor change in assumptions.
o These papers only show that some results do not necessarily hold. Such
efforts are basically a comment on someone else's paper.
25. Mix ingredients of other papers
How does one extend the literature? Suppose there are two important papers in
the literature,
p1 = {A, B, C, and D}, p2 = {C, D, and E}
where A, B, ... are ingredients.
Let pnew = {A, B, E} be a new paper.
o Does the new combination make sense? Does it describe an important economic
phenomenon in a certain country or does it capture an interesting situation?
o If pnew = {A, C, X} where X is totally new, and if it makes sense, it may be
an original idea.
o Original papers add something new and dare to eliminate some old notions. Do
not worry about compatibility with old papers.
26. Write on interesting subjects
o There must be an interesting story, a story that nonexperts?who would skip
all the equations?would find intriguing.
o Equations should not dominate the paper. People lose interest.
o Controversies and debates stimulate reader interest.
o Before writing, answer the question: what new ideas or results does this
paper offer?
o You have to demonstrate that there is some interest in the topic on which
you are working.
________________________________________
Comments or Notes
27. Avoid writing comments on other papers
o Writing comments is risky because you are at the mercy of the original
author.
o If a comment or note is rejected, you cannot send it anywhere without
substantial rewriting; it is too short.
o When a comment or note is rejected, abandon the note or expand it to a
full-blown paper.
o If you add something new while making the original author shine, you might
succeed. For instance, if you name the result after the original author, it
makes everybody happy.
o If you point out errors in the original paper, your referee (the original
author) will find something wrong in your comments also, whether they are
real, imaginary, or spurious.
o Occasionally, writing comments is okay (once every few years). But do it
quickly, while the editor's memory is still fresh.
o A safer approach is to write an independent paper.
o AER has a standing policy not publishing comments, even to correct errors.
Remember Robert Fulghum’s advice “Clean up your mess”?
o Do not develop a habit of writing comments on others' work.
28. Do not correct small errors others make
o It is dangerous. This practice rarely earns you respect.
o You may not be right. As you rush to prove your points, you may not have
grasped all the fine points of the original paper.
o Even if you are right, the original author may lurk in the trenches where
he/she can stage a counterattack and damage your credibility in the future.
o You also don’t like to have your errors pointed out.
o Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest
not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Matthew 7:3)
o The referee may then be negative toward all your future papers.
o Communicate with the original author before you submit your comment. If you
are diplomatic and fortunate, you might acquire a friend who would look at
your papers with favor in the future. On the other hand, you may find an enemy
who will always find fault with your future papers.
o
Writing Strategies
Cover Page and Cover Letter
1. Prepare a perfect cover page and an abstract
o The cover page should contain complete correspondence information about the
submitting author:
 postal address
 telephone and fax numbers
 e-mail address
o If you move, give your new address to the editorial office.
o If updating a paper, give the current date (or month and year).
o Do not mention when a paper was first written and when it was revised. The
editor can tell how often the paper has been rejected, and may erroneously
conclude that it should receive the same treatment. If you really need the
information for yourself, you can add such things as a non-printing comment.
It is probably more convenient to maintain a separate record that shows the
status of all your unpublished papers.
o If the referee figures out that the paper has been rejected more than once,
he/she is more likely to recommend rejection.
o The abstract and the paper should be prepared together.
o When the paper is finally accepted, the abstract has to be written, but your
memory is hazy. It is better to do it when your memory is fresh.
o The abstract should appear on the second page. Then if the editor rips off
the cover page, the abstract will still reach the referee.
o Eliminate typographical errors in the cover page and the abstract. This is
an absolute minimum courtesy. If there is an error, it is a sign of gross
neglect.
o Of course, you have to check the spelling for the entire paper, and you
should do that every time you revise the paper.
2. Don't explain how important the paper is in the cover letter
o Editors do not read it.
o Maybe the secretaries do.
o This is a signal that you lack experience and that you are not confident.
o One or two explanatory sentences may not hurt. (You may pass the initial
screening.)
________________________________________
Introduction
3. Devote half the writing time to the introduction and conclusion
o Once the ideas of a publishable paper are roughly formulated, writing should
be done within a month. Otherwise, you lose interest. You may even forget
about the entire paper.
o About half of your writing time should be devoted to writing the main body
of the paper, which should be done first.
o The remainder of your effort should be devoted to writing the introduction
and conclusion.
4. Get their attention early
o Provide evidence of why it is interesting (i.e., why it should be published)
in the introduction.
o If an apple does not taste good at the first bite, one simply throws it away
without giving any thought on the nutritional value hidden in the apple.
o Likewise, most referees make up their mind at the first bite, i.e., within
15 minutes of reading a paper.
o If the referees don't like a paper, they begin to look for reasons to
justify why the paper should be rejected.
o If the referee loses interest from reading the introduction, he/she might
postpone reading the paper.
o If a paper is set aside, it could be several months later when the referee
picks up the paper again, probably if and when he/she receives a reminder
about the review. This is one of the major reasons why it takes a long time to
get a report.
o Do not repeat the concluding remarks in the introduction.
5. The introduction should be two pages or less
o If the introduction is more than two pages, it is too long.
o Shorten it to 2 pages or 1/6 of the paper, whichever is less.
o If you write more than two pages, then either
 you are discoursing a lot about other people, in which case you are
sending a signal that your contribution is minor, relative to the literature,
or
 you are discussing too many technical details, which do not belong in
the introduction.
6. Discuss real world examples
o Pass the relevance test by providing citations, statistics, or anecdotes of
real world examples.
o Then the referee cannot say the paper is uninteresting, the most common
reason for rejection.
o If the referee says it is not interesting, it is a value judgment and there
is no appeal! No editors will publish an uninteresting paper.
o One important purpose of the introduction is to prevent the referees from
making that disparaging remark.
o Without this sound footing in the real world, your paper may give the
impression to readers that it provides a profound solution to nonexistent
problems.
7. Imitate skillful writers
o Observe how other successful writers introduce their topic, cite literature,
and get on with their task.
o Imitate their words and phrases, and modify them to suit your purpose.
o It is easier to imitate what someone else has written than to create a
totally new paragraph.
8. Do not plagiarize
o The word “plagiarize” means to “steal and pass off as one’s own (the
ideas or words of another).” (Webster’s Third International Dictionary,
1986)
o Remember Robert Fulghum’s advice “Don’t take things that aren’t yours.”

o If you do, you will pay dearly later when your work is published. You are
lucky if the paper is not published!
o If you are quoting statements made by another writer, use identifying
quotation marks.
o Some people suggest that one should not copy more than three consecutive
words without identifying quotation marks. This is extreme advice that no one
can follow.
o Do not copy, but summarize the contributions of other writers in your own
words to the extent that they are related to the subject of your paper.
o Mention the cited author with year of publication in the text and give the
exact source in the reference section.
9. Do not use I
o Some authors do get away with I.
o Referees are generally biased against egocentric persons.
o Take the writing task seriously, not yourself.
o "The paper achieves...." sounds softer and more humble than "I did this."
o Avoid starting a paragraph with I.
10. Create a packet of related articles for each paper
o All cited and other related papers must be at hand.
o This practice saves time, especially when writing the introduction and
conclusion, and when you revise the paper.
o If you maintain the background packet, you do not have to go to the library
every time you revise the paper.
11. Treat others generously
o Emphasize the importance of the paper being written, but not at the expense
of others. They are probably your referees and they are sensitive.
o Don’t hit people (Robert Fulghum). Do not hurt their feelings.
o When mentioning the works of other persons, avoid using negative terms.
o Examples:
 "The deficiency of Smith's approach is..."
 "The problems of these papers..."
o Papers that attack others are likely to be rejected, especially when the
authors or their friends become your referees.
12. Avoid predominantly citing your own works
o The referees may think you are a self-centered clod. There are others who
have contributed to the literature.
o If the first page only mentions your past work, and not that of others, it
means either
 you are probably digging into an area in which no one else is
interested?this implication is bad?or
 you are an egotist who disregards the contributions of others, which
is even worse.
13. Cite the papers of potential referees in the introduction
o In many situations, whether your paper is accepted or not primarily depends
on who referees it.
o If you offend the referee by your thoughtless comments, this paper and many
of your future papers will have no place to go.
o Important references should be mentioned in the first page.
o Hopefully, the editor will read the first page (or the next) when choosing
the referees.
o The editor may choose referees from those mentioned in the introduction and
references.
o Works of potential referees should be mentioned in the introduction, rather
than buried deep in footnotes or the main body.
14. Give (accurate) credit generously to the most likely referees
o Be generous to all authors cited, but particularly to those who are likely
to be referees.
o Explain why their works are significant for your analysis.
o Write one or two sentences about the contributions of each of the most
likely referees and how their works are related to yours.
o This takes up less than 1% of the space, but it can affect the probability
of acceptance significantly.
15. Find quotations from well-known authors
o This strategy increases the credibility of the paper.
o For instance, if John Maynard Keynes or Kenneth Arrow said something about
the topic, it is difficult for the referee to argue that your paper is
uninteresting.
o Quoting a live, famous person is more effective; his or her students might
be referees.
o Do not quote dead people too often; they won't be your referees. (No pun
intended.)
o Do not quote yourself. This implies narcissism or lack of exposure to the
thinking of other economists.
16. Do not be apologetic
o You may acknowledge the limitations of the approach only once in the
conclusion.
o But do not apologize for what the paper cannot do.
o The more you mention to the referees what the paper does not do, the less
contribution it seems to make to the literature.
Preparing the Main Body

17. Prepare a rough outline before writing
o Sketch briefly the content of each section. Then generate the text. Smooth
out the connections. Without this rough blueprint, the paper often evolves in
a different direction than you intended.
o This blueprint reduces the chances that you will lose direction and dwell
too much upon minor points.
o This sketch needs to be changed as you go.
18. Start writing before the paper is finished in your head
o The precise connection of words from beginning to end cannot be done in your
head, except by a few geniuses like Shakespeare.
o A 15-page paper may contain about 4 - 5,000 words. Writing a paper is like
stringing pearls to make a necklace. There is an optimum order for these
pearls to form a paper, and some pearls are better left out.
o Begin the main body of the paper with empirical or theoretical results. Then
create the introduction and conclusion.
o Tables and references may be added as needed.
19. Do not read too much
o Do not read too much before you begin to write. It can interfere with your
own thinking and writing.
o Imagine how much time a prolific writer would spend reading the
contributions of other people.
o It is impossible to read every paper ever written on a subject.
o Remember your goal is to write and publish a paper, not to read everything.
o You have other important things to do (e.g., taking care of spouse and
children)!
o If your family is neglected, what good is your paper?
o If you read a dozen papers on a topic, you should have enough material to
write a paper. Now add your own ideas to this base of knowledge.
20. Develop consistent and simple notations
o Invest enough time to design efficient notations for your papers.
o Do this not just for one paper, but for most of your papers. This helps you
remember when you revise a paper.
o If the notations are confusing, the paper cannot be very illuminating.
o Each paper may have some notations that are specifically tailored for the
task. But the variables should come from a well-designed and consistent set of
notations so that you may readily remember what they stand for.
21. Strike a balance between theory and applications
o A theoretical paper should say something about policies, applications, or
empirical work.
o An empirical paper should say something about the theory that led to the
empirical work.
o Check the preferences of the journals that you are considering.
22. Divide long paragraphs
o If there are two or more ideas in a single paragraph, split them up.
o Break up long paragraphs even if they contain a single idea.
o Readers tend to skip long paragraphs. They discourage referees and readers
from reading the paper.
o The eyes of readers are subconsciously looking for open space. This is why
important equations should be displayed, rather than buried in the text.
o No paragraph should be longer than half a page.
o As a general rule, a paragraph should have more than two sentences.
23. Each full page should have more than two paragraphs
o A paragraph extending over a page indicates that you are not an experienced
writer.
o Referees and readers skip long paragraphs.
o When there are many equations, it is easy to forget to control the length of
a paragraph.
24. Summarize theoretical findings in propositions
o If you do not want the referees to miss important results, repeat them in
propositions.
o The referees do not read every word you write. They are more likely to read
the displayed items.
o Minimize the number of words in a given proposition.
25. Use tables to summarize results or to compare with the literature
o Tables provide another way to catch the attention of referees.
o Avoid too many numbers in one table.
o Do not present more than three tables, except in empirically oriented
papers.
o Do not present more than six tables even in empirical papers.
26. Minimize numbered equations
o There should be some equations. Otherwise, the referees might think that it
is a purely descriptive paper.
o But do not include too many equations. A paper with more than 30 equations
seems difficult to read.
o Do not display every equation. Less important equations can be buried in the
text.
o Not all equations need to be numbered.
o Use primes or other variations such as (3') or (7a), (7b), etc. to group
related equations.
o If there are more than a score of equations, move long derivations to the
Appendix.
27. Simplify figures
o A (good) figure is worth a thousand words.
o Do not use too many curves, lines, or labels.
o Ten years after publication, readers may not remember anything about a
paper, not equations nor derivations. But they may recall a figure.
o As a general rule, a paper should not contain more than two figures and
rarely more than three.
o Too many figures suggest that the paper represents a low-tech research
effort.
________________________________________
Conclusion
28. Summarize the contribution briefly in the conclusion
o A paper needs a concluding remark. A note does not, but it may include such
a remark.
o Mention the limitations of the results (without being negative).
o Discuss how the theory may be extended in certain areas.
o The referees may be interested in writing a related paper. If they are
honest, they would need your paper as a basis, and hence are likely to
recommend acceptance. That?stimulating a reader to extend your research?is
your contribution.
o Compare your results to those in the current literature.
o If the literature does not have comparable results, discuss how your paper
is related to the literature.
o Do not repeat some portion of the introduction in the conclusion.
29. Discuss policy implications
o Explain how the theory applies to real world examples.
o Example: In practice, A is used, but you recommend B, etc.
o Do not rehash what you already said in the main body of the paper.
Especially, do not copy and paste it in the conclusion.
o If you do, the referees will know you are not articulate.
o Present the bottom line. Mention the implications for policy makers,
practitioners, or other researchers.
________________________________________
Abstract and Title
30. Write a provokative abstract
o Write the abstract only after the conclusion is written.
o The referees read it more often than any other paragraph in the paper.
o In 15 seconds, you have to convince the referees (and readers) that they
should proceed with the rest of the paper.
o So do an excellent job here.
o If it is boring, your paper is hopeless.
31. Choose an interesting title
o Give the paper an eye-catching title.
o If the title is boring, readers will avoid your paper even when it is
published. The paper won't generate many citations.
o Never try to squeeze the content of the paper in the title.
o Giving a title to a paper is like naming your child. The title should be
short.
o One line is best. Never use more than two lines.
o Avoid "On the...". It implies that the paper is actually a note. Because it
is on a well-known subject, the editors are led to believe that the paper
probably contains little that is new.
________________________________________
References
32. Minimize references
o An inexperienced writer rarely resists the temptation to cite all papers
that have ever been written on the subject.
o This practice may be appropriate for a doctoral dissertation, but not for a
journal paper.
o An ideal number of references is one dozen. A practical upper limit is
twenty.
o For all papers, follow the reference style of a well-known journal in the
field.
o Do not revise the reference style each time you submit the paper. The
acceptance decision is not based on the style of your references.
o After the paper is accepted, you can use the style of the journal in
question.
33. Include references to authors who are known to like your papers
o Perhaps they might become referees.
o Include references to people with whom you have had favorable
correspondence.
o This is not to bias opinions, but to get a fair hearing.
o Referees have to make a conscious effort and must be alert in order to be
fair to unknown authors.
o Include liberal references to famous economists, dead or alive, who are
unlikely to be your referees.
34. Delete or hide the references to undesirable potential referees
o Even with double blind reviews, one can often guess the identity of the
referee from the report because of references and writing style, etc.
o Editors often select referees from your references.
o If some referees consistently recommend rejection of your papers, drop their
papers from your references (in the initial submission).
o You can add them later (after the paper is accepted).
o This may require rewriting the introduction with a somewhat different
perspective, but it is probably worth the effort.
o Depending on the journal, you may ask the editor to eliminate some persons
from the pool of referees. But you should ask informally (e.g., via e-mail) in
advance if it is okay.
35. Cite your own articles
o An article is considered "important" if it is cited 30 times or more by
others.
o Cite your own related papers, provided that they were published or are
forthcoming in a prestigious journal. Others may look up your other papers and
cite them.
o But do not cite too many.
o If you have a good reputation, this practice can be useful because the
referee may figure out that it is your paper.
o Do not cite your own unpublished papers or publications in an obscure
journal. The editors and referees may conclude that the current paper also
should be published in such journals.
o Do not cite your dissertation. The referees will know you are inexperienced.

o Do not cite someone else's dissertation. The referees may erroneously
conclude that you are him or her or a close associate, all of whom are
inexperienced.
________________________________________
Endnotes and Appendix
36. Put technical, detailed comments in notes
o Combined endnotes, tables, references, and appendix or appendices should be
smaller than the main body of the paper. Otherwise, readers wonder “where is
the beef?”
o The main text should be free from technical details, and the major ideas
should emerge from reading it.
o Intellectual clutter should be relegated to closets, i.e., notes.
o Use notes to insert references and to make points that do not distract
typical readers.
o No more than 10 endnotes should be provided. Avoid them like the plague
(Horowitz, 1995).
o Notes should be short, not exceeding a page and never more than two pages.
37. Put long derivations in an extended note or an appendix.
o Long derivations of an essential result or an equation which may be over
half a page can be included in an extended footnote, if there is risk of
boring readers.
o If there are two or more extended notes, they should be converted to an
appendix.
o If the derivation is purely mathematical without apparent insight, it should
be in an appendix.
38. Notes intended for referees should not be in the appendix.
o Anything intended for referees' eyes only should be explained in the notes.
o Do not detach such notes from the paper, but write "Not for Publication" on
them. If you detach the notes from the paper, they may not reach the referees.

39. Your paper should not exceed 25 pages
o If this is difficult, at least keep the text within 20 pages (Horowitz,
1995). This is the amount the referees would read.
o As the length of the paper increases, the probability of acceptance
decreases. The referees are more likely to find something wrong.
o As the length of the paper increases,
 You are more likely to make mathematical errors.
 The chance that the referee thinks you made a mistake increases (even
when you are right).
 You are more likely to make statements that will offend referees.
Preparation and Submission
Preparation for Submission
1. Sit on the finished version for one week
o After the paper is completed, do not immediately submit it to a journal. (It
is not finished yet.)
o You invariably will find many small errors in text, notations, explanations,
or missing references, etc. in your finished paper.
2. Reread the introduction, conclusion, and abstract before submission
o Reread these three parts carefully before you submit the paper to a journal
and eliminate all typographical errors and other embarrassing mistakes.
o A typographical error on the first page of introduction or abstract
indicates that the author is careless.
o Such errors tend to lead referees and editors, rightly or wrongly, to
conclude that the paper should be rejected. They conclude that the author is
likely to be sloppy in substance as well. And they might be right.
o If you don't proofread your own introduction, why expect the referees to
spot and correct all the errors?
3. Use, but do not rely totally on spelling checkers
o One should always check spelling before submission. But there are no
substitutes for reading the papers personally.
o Spelling checkers do not check word meanings.
4. Do not arouse envy
o Do not use fancy fonts or expensive bond paper.
o Do not cite too many of your own papers.
 The referees might feel that you have published too many papers.
 The referees might feel justified to recommend rejection of your
paper.
 Especially when he/she received one recently.
o Do not thank famous people in the acknowledgment, at least not in the first
submission. The referee's contacts may not be as good as yours.
o Do not thank family members. This is understandable, but it is
unprofessional.
5. Use common sense
o It is not a good idea to send a hand-written submission letter. The
submission letter contains critical information about the author (address,
telephone number, e-mail address, etc.) Your scribbling may be a challenge to
the deciphering ability of the editors or their assistants. A small
typographical error in the address might make a letter to the author
undeliberable. Here is an example:

o Use a sturdy envelope, especially, if you are sending a manuscript to a
foreign country. An enclosed check might be missing from the package by the
time it reaches the editorial office.
o You do not want your package to arrive at the editorial office looking like
these:



6. Consider electronic submission if allowed by journals
o Journal offices increasingly are more willing to receive electronic
submissions.
o Electronic submissions are faster and safer.
o Word processor files can damage the hard disk of the journal office. For
this reasons, they prefer PDF files.
o When submitting to journals that adopt double-blind refereeing process,
submit the cover page and the main body separately. Remove your name in the
document property (Your computer may record it automatically.)
o Experienced people report that Acrobat PDF Writer does not always produce
dependable PDF files.
o Use the dependable Acrobat Distiller. For instance, after the Acrobat is
installed, you can print a Word document using Acrobat Distiller and save it
at a desired drive. You can then e-mail the file.
o After a PDF file is produced, go over it to see if all symbols are properly
represented. If a symbol is not properly converted by Adobe Distiller, try
retyping it using another font. Avoid using nonstandard symbols, because
Acrobat Distiller may not convert them properly.
o Visit the NSF site concerning problems you encounter when creating PDF
files, http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/pdfcreat.htm.
________________________________________
Working Papers
7. Present an early version as a working paper
o If a paper contains enough substance of a roughly sketched idea, you may
offer it as a working paper, just for the record.
o Distribute it to a dozen trusted friends in your field to get feedback.
o But do not distribute it widely.
o Working papers can attract coauthors, and a revised version may be published
later. When you are up for promotion and tenure, the working papers provide
evidence that you have started the work.
8. Do not submit your working paper to an electronic journal
o Get ready for the future of publishing. Most journals will become available
electronically over the coming years. Hard copies may still be available, but
they will be expensive because of limited print runs.
o You may submit abstracts to journals on the Internet, but it is not
advisable to post the actual articles.
o For legal purposes, the electronic publications may be treated as
publications. But for tenure and promotion purposes, they do not count as
publications. This is a problem.
o It is easy for someone to manipulate the electronic copy (even PDF or PS
files), modify it a little, and submit it to another journal under a different
title.
________________________________________
Acknowledgment
9. Remove negative clues from acknowledgment
o In the acknowledgment, remove any reference to when the paper was conceived
or written.
o Editors of journals that adopt the double-blind review procedure are not
likely to send papers to persons mentioned in the acknowledgment.
o Do not thank in the acknowledgment the people whom you would like to serve
as referees. Acknowledge them after the paper is accepted. Otherwise, they are
likely to be left out of the review process.
o Once you receive an invitation to publish, include an acknowledgment to the
referees, whether anonymous or not.
________________________________________
Submission
10. Eliminate any trace of prior rejections
o Do not indicate when the paper was first written. If the original version
was written a few years earlier, the editors and the referees clearly see that
it has been rejected a few times.
o Do not indicate how often the paper has been revised. This suggests you do
not listen and properly modify the paper to make it more publishable.
o In the references, eliminate any references to papers that were
"forthcoming" a few years back. This not only indicates that your paper was
previously rejected a few times, but also that you are sloppy in updating the
references.
11. Submit your paper to a rising journal
o Good specialty journals are rising.
o The acceptance rate may be higher. Payoff is greater later.
o Identify and avoid the declining journals whose acceptance rate is low with
a diminishing payoff later.
o General journals, except for a few at the top, are expected to decline
because of increased specialization and the resulting drop in demand for them.
In general journals, "readers are confronted with a decreasing probability of
finding at least one important article" (Holub, Tappeiner, and Eberharter,
1991) in their field.
o In the 1970s, the top ten journals were general journals.
o In the 1990s, half of the top ten journals were field journals.
o As you become more specialized, an increasingly smaller fraction of papers
in general journals become relevant to your research. Accordingly, demand for
general journals is likely to decline.
o Increased specialization is more likely in the future.
12. Keep a log of research papers
o In the first two or three years when the number of articles under review is
small, it is easy to remember the status of your papers. Later, as the number
of articles increases, a log will prove invaluable.
o The purpose of a log is to
 know when to send a reminder to the editor,
 prevent resubmission of a rejected paper to the same journal, unless
of course, it is your intention to resubmit the rejected paper to the same
journal (after a change of editors), and
 avoid multiple submission of several papers to the same journal
within a short period of time.
o For each paper, note the pool of potential journals.
o When a paper is rejected, do not lose time resubmitting the paper to another
journal.
o Keep a log of the life history of each paper.
13. Do not submit two papers to the same journal in two months
o Especially if the two articles are related.
o Other things being equal, editors prefer to publish two articles by
different authors, rather than two articles by the same author.
o You may submit more papers to the same journal simultaneously if there is
more than one editor. They do not often communicate with one another. In this
instance, acceptance of one article by one editor does not adversely affect
the chance of another being accepted by a different editor.
14. Check for related articles in the journal being considered
o Try to find some related articles in the journal to which you wish to submit
your paper.
o Authors who published a paper on a related subject are likely to be
referees. The editor's memory is still fresh.
o Obviously, you need to say something about, or at least cite, their papers.
o Even if they are marginally related, try to incorporate their references.
Make some effort to explain how your work is related.
15. Avoid the journals which consistently reject your papers
o Haven't you learned your lesson yet?
o Avoid (temporarily) the journals which have rejected your papers
consistently, say three times in a row.
o The editor still remembers all those bad remarks about your papers.
o Wait until a new editor is appointed.
o First and middle names, as well as last name, often reveal the sex, race, or
nationality of the authors.
o If you have reason to believe that you are being discriminated against on
the basis of sex, race, or nationality, you may consider using initials
instead of spelling out the first and middle names.
o You may reveal your full name after the paper is accepted.
16. Use professional editorial assistance
o Particularly if you are not a native English speaker
o Editors will not publish papers with grammatical errors.
o It is safe to assume that referees are biased; they have an excuse to
recommend rejection when grammatical errors are detected.
o You can easily find a copy editor who charges a reasonable fee.
o Editorial help is available in the English department of any university in
the United States or the United Kingdom. If you live elsewhere, you need to
invest some time to develop friends located there. You may be able to check
and expedite the editing process through them.
17. Know the preferences or biases of journals
o If a journal rarely publishes empirical papers, do not send one there.
o Similarly, if a journal rarely publishes theory papers, do not submit one
there.
o If you suspect discrimination, check the past issues of the journal in
question. This will reveal surprising insights.
o Preferences are known; biases are difficult to detect.
o There are three types of journals:
 Association journals (AER, Econometrica, etc.)
 University journals, managed and edited by university faculty (QJE,
JPE, etc.)
 Journals published by commercial publishers (Blackwell,
North-Holland, etc.)
Problems of Journals
o Association journals: Editors change every few years, and they tend to
accept more papers by colleagues and friends while they are at the helm. Since
the editors are chosen from among a few major institutions, they tend to get a
larger share of publications than under ideal academic conditions. Subsidized
by associations.
o University journals: Promoting truth and knowledge is not necessarily the
primary concern of these journals. The universities need to protect their own
interests. They should set a good example by announcing that their editorial
standards are not compromised to protect their own interests, but do they have
the courage? Subsidized by universities.
o Commercial journals: To maximize profits they are least likely to have
preferences or biases. However, they cannot survive without reader
subscriptions.
Clan Power and Publication
o Roughly half of the papers published in some 40 high-ranked economic
journals are never cited by others (Holub, Tappeiner, and Eberharter, SEJ
1991). Journals included in their studies were: AER, CJE, EJ, EER, IER, JDE,
JEL, JET, JMCB, JPE, JPubE, OEP, QJE, RES, REStat, SEJ, Econometrica,
Economica, and Economic Inquiry among others.
o Even their referees would not cite these papers. This indicates that they
did not place a high value on the papers. Why would these referees then
recommend their publication?
o This finding suggests that in each field there may be small groups that
exert some influence by recommending publication of the papers by their clan
members.
o The clan members, implicit or explicit, are rent seekers. They recommend
publication of their own papers at the expense of nonmembers.
o An effective way for a newcomer to beat the clans is to join them by
collaborating with a clan member.
o The double-blind review process tends to reduce the power of clan members.
o Even with the double-blind review process, referees often know or guess the
identity of authors because papers are circulated prior to submission.
o Circulation of working papers prior to acceptance effectively reveals the
identity of the author and increases the rent that accrues to clan members.
How long to wait for results
18. Contact the editor after six months
o Editors do not have an alarm clock that goes off for each paper after a
certain period of time has elapsed.
o If it has been six months from the date of acknowledgment, you should
contact the editor.
o If you are counting from the date of your submission, allow seven months.
o Remember that the editors of many top journals are older and lack computer
skills. So e-mail is not an option. If this is the case, write a polite
letter.
o If you do not get a response within two months, send a second inquiry.
o Call the editorial office or inquire via fax.
o If you still get no reply after a third inquiry, you should not submit a
paper to such a journal again.
o An e-mail inquiry is okay, if the editorial office is so equipped.
o Note that e-mail inquiry is less formal and e-mail traffic is increasing.
o E-mail messages are less reliable; they may not reach the editorial office.
Rejection and Revision
Rejection
1. When rejected, try again
o Even Nobel Laureates get rejection letters.
o Papers lying dormant in the file drawer do not bring any good news!
o Submit the paper to another journal within one month. But wait!
o If a referee points out a major problem, you need to address it.
o You do not have to revise a paper every time it is rejected.
o But if a paper is rejected 4 times, there is a serious flaw in the paper.
Find and fix the problem.
o Make a modest effort to incorporate the valuable suggestions of the referee
before submitting to another journal.
o Why? The same referee might get it again.
o Do whatever possible to make sure the negative referee does not get the
paper again. You are entitled to new referee reports.
2. If a "stupid" referee misunderstood your paper, it is your fault
o Truth hurts sometimes, but listen anyway.
o Some referees spend as little as 15 minutes reading your paper. Your paper
should be clearly presented, and it should be comprehensible by such referees.

o The typical referee spends two hours or more on your paper. Moreover, he/she
is an expert in the field. Find out why such an expert has trouble
understanding your paper and correct the problems.
o This "stupid" referee problem will not disappear until you correct it.
o There must be something valuable in those reports. Salvage and incorporate
them freely in your paper. (And you do not have to thank them.) This is not
plagiarism.
3. Do not get angry
o Do not brood over ways to get even with the referees or the editor. Your
energy then would be devoted to a counterproductive and unhappy task.
o Writing a rebuttal letter to the editor rarely reverses the decision. The
referee has to defend it, even if it was a bad report.
o The editor already has a stack of such complaints. One more is not likely
to change the editor’s decision, albeit there are exceptions.
o When the referee successfully defends the report (in the eyes of the
editor), you lose any capital you may have accumulated.
o Write only if it is a simple matter.
o Instead of trying to prove that the referee is wrong on several points,
explain why you might deserve a second or third opinion.
o Example: argue that there is no mathematical error, contrary to the report.
________________________________________
Revision
o There might be a time limit for resubmission, usually six months to a year
from the date of the invitation letter.
o If you do not intend to revise and resubmit the paper for whatever reason,
let the editorial office know of your intention (via e-mail/fax).
o Remember that for all practical purposes this is probably your last chance
to revise the paper. The probability that you will succeed is about 50%,
depending on the journals. Sloppy, rough revisions will surely result in
rejection. The editorial office will not continue to provide mediation between
the referees and authors because there are other papers demanding attention.
o You received an invitation to revise the paper because it might contain a
publishable idea. However, papers will not be accepted unless they are
presentable and polished enough for publication.
4. Be optimistic and get excited
o Don't blow it. (If you do, you may wait three more years to get another
favorable letter.)
o Take the time to do a good job. The goal is to ensure acceptance, not to
minimize the effort.
o Do not save your effort. Go the extra mile. You have a chance (about 50%).
5. Write a detailed response to individual referees
o Take every comment of the referee seriously.
o In a note to be transmitted to the referee, first thank him or her.
o Number all relevant comments and respond to those (explain what you did in
the revised paper).
o Indicate that you are doing everything possible and more.
o If you cannot accommodate the demands, thank the referee for the suggestion,
but offer explanations why they are beyond the scope of the paper or why it is
not possible at the time.
6. Do not attack referees
o Generally, it is not a good idea to berate the reviewers. Don’t lash out at
the referees.
o Although they may not have a favorable opinion of your paper, they took the
time to read your paper!
o Do not say: "The referee's idea is bad, but mine is good."
o Better to say, the referee has an interesting notion, but the proposed idea
is also good, particularly in light of this or that fact.
o If the referee makes a valid point (you can almost always find conditions
under which the referee's points are valid), explain why, due to this or that
difficulty, you are not pursuing that course in the paper.
7. Resubmit the revised paper within three months
o Remember that this invitation is based on reports by some referees who had
good first impressions about your paper. Do not wait until that positive aura
vanishes.
o Do not resubmit the revised version in one month, even if you worked on it
full time.
o If you do, the editor may think that you have not devoted a sufficient
amount of time to the revision.
8. Write just one paragraph a day if you hate to revise
o The referees or editors have asked you to do an impossible or dreadful task.
Then just write one paragraph a day. You can do that!
o This works when you know you can do it, you should do it, but you cannot get
excited. The situation requires careful self-inducement.
o As you write a little bit at a time, before you know it, you get fired up.
9. Listen to what the editor says
o It is important to glean the true message from the editor's letter.
o Do not try to bargain with the editor (unless he/she starts it).
o Share the editor's letter and referee reports with experienced colleagues.
They may have surprisingly different interpretations.
________________________________________
Resubmission
When your revision is completed, you should send the following to the editor:
o copies of the paper (as many as requested)
o cover letter
o packet for each referee.
10. Check the Revised Paper
o The cover page should contain complete contact information about the author:
(i) address, (ii) telephone and fax numbers, and (iii) e-mail address. This
allows the editorial office to contact you quickly should the need arise. If
you anticipate moving, provide your forwarding postal and e-mail addresses.
o The cover page of the revised paper should include the current date (or
month and year) of revision; you do not want the office to send an old version
to the referees by mistake.
o If there were any complaints about the writing style, try to get some
editorial assistance. Remember that many papers are rejected because of
writing style problems.
o Eliminate typographical errors in the cover page and the abstract. This is
an absolute minimum courtesy.
o Last, but not least, make sure that there are no pages missing in any of the
copies.
Cover Letter
11. Explain succinctly how you revised the paper
o The purpose is to convince the editor that he or she should not send the
paper back to the referees.
o If the editor already indicated that he or she would send the paper back to
the referees, then your letter also should explain how well you followed the
suggestions of the referees.
Referee's Packet
12. Prepare a packet for each referee
o Regardless of whether the editorial office is well-managed or not, you
should prepare a packet for each referee. Each packet must include everything
a referee might possibly need. Specifically,
 A copy of the original (or latest) report. The referee might have
lost the file or might not remember even vaguely what he/she asked you to do.
A copy of the report not only helps the referee remember what he/she said
about your paper, but it also constrains the referee not to deviate too much
from the earlier report. The editorial office also has copies, but you want to
ensure acceptance even when the office is not well staffed.
 A copy of the revised version. Make sure you have responded to every
comment of the referee.
 A response to the referee's report. Do not forget to thank the
referee. Explain what you did or did not do in response to every comment.
 If the referee said something which you and the other referee did not
agree on, include a common response to the referees. This might calm down the
problem referee.
Being a Good Referee
General Guidelines
• You are performing a valuable service to the profession. It is worth
doing well. It also is good for your spirit when you have done something
worthwhile for society.
• As soon as you receive a manuscript, make sure it is something you are
qualified to judge. If you had agreed to review because of a misleading title
and you are not qualified to do the job, return the paper to the editor as
soon as possible.
• A referee report consists of two parts:
o a cover letter with the manuscript number/title and your opinion, and
o the report itself intended to be transmitted to the author(s).
• E-mail reports are acceptable to most journals. If the editorial
office is modern and the journal is well-managed, e-mail reports should be
preferred to reports by fax or snail (regular) mail, because snail mail often
unduly retards the editorial process and fax reports often are difficult to
read because of low resolution and small letters.
• Consider sending the report via e-mail or fax particularly when the
editor is on a different continent. International mail is generally less
reliable than its domestic counterpart.
• To expedite the refereeing process, you may fax your cover letter and
comments. Use high resolution mode, if possible. Just in case, also mail the
report.
• If regular mail is chosen, include two or three copies of the report.
Lost the manuscript?
• If you lose the manuscript, apologize and ask the editor to send you
another copy. Editors understand that referees who travel frequently lose
manuscripts occasionally.
• Do not wait six months to ask for a replacement copy or to tell you
never received the manuscript.
If you do not receive the manuscript
• If within four weeks (six weeks for international mail) you do not get
the manuscript you agreed to referee, contact the editor. The manuscript is
either lost or has not been sent out.
How Does One Become A Referee?
Here is a brief answer in response to this frequently asked
question. If you are well established, you will probably get a fair share of
articles to referee. If not, there are two ways to become a referee:
• Submit articles to journals. If you write an article on a given
subject, editors often assume you are an expert in that area. You might become
a referee for papers on similar topics.
• Write a letter to the editors. You can express your willingness to
serve as a referee in the areas of your choice. It is a good idea to enclose
your curriculum vitae.
________________________________________
1. Do it promptly
o Nothing is more appreciated by the editor and the authors than a prompt
referee report. The future career of the author depends on your timely
service.
o Do it in 4 to 6 weeks.
o Don't be too prompt! Otherwise, you may get too many requests.
o Prompt and sincere reports are your line of credit. You may need it when you
submit a paper to that journal.
o Hard copies are acceptable, but you may e-mail the report.
o If it would take you more than three months to complete the review, inform
the editor about the delay.
2. Be a fair and constructive referee
o Do not react even if the author attacks your previous contributions.
o Remember the days when you were a tadpole and the referees were gentle to
you.
o Focus on the merits, not on the immaturity of the writer. Science advances
because the next generation is immature and willing to experiment.
o If you are unfair or sloppy in a referee report, the authors may strike
back. The editor will remember the incident, even if the decision is not
reversed.
o If it is outside your area of expertise, promptly return the paper.
o If the topic is in your area, studying the paper carefully may lead you to
write another paper.
3. Do not plagiarize
o Make sure that you do not plagiarize and steal the ideas in the paper,
either consciously or subconsciously.
o For instance, examine the motive of a referee who says to himself: "Hm.... I
can do better than this author without making all these stupid mistakes. In
fact, I am going to do it."
o If you want to borrow some ideas from the paper, even if it is badly
written, make sure you recommend its publication and explain how to revise it.
If the author gave enough ideas to you to write a related paper, perhaps you
should recommend its publication. Ask the editor when the paper will be
published so you can cite it.
o It is unethical to recommend rejection of a paper which gives you creative
ideas to write another paper.
________________________________________
Cover Letter
You can reduce untold amounts of frustration you may impose upon authors and
help the profession immensely if your cover letter includes:
o the manuscript number (it takes extra time to locate the manuscript without
it).
o the title (in case there is an error in the manuscript number, this ensures
that the editorial office locates the manuscript).
o your postal address
o your permanent e-mail address
o your summary opinion
 A. Accept in present form or with slight changes.
 B. Accept for publication after minor revision, with a suggestion
about the length.
 C. Reconsider for publication after extensive revision.
 D. Reject, with suggestions for possible submission elsewhere.
o If you did not recommend one of the above, your letter is not well written.
4. Cover letter should be brief, not technical
o Explain the reasons why you recommend that the paper be accepted, rejected,
or revised.
o If you would like the editor to accept the paper, your recommendation must
be strong.
o If you consistently recommend rejection, then the editor recognizes you are
a stingy, overly critical person. Do not assume that the editor will not
reveal your identity to the authors. In the long run, there are no secrets.
o If you recommend acceptance of all papers, then the editor knows you are not
a discriminating referee.
________________________________________
Report
o Prepare your comments that include your reasons, suggestions, and concerns.
o Comment on the manuscript's originality, clarity, contribution to the
literature, and relevance to real world problems.
o Make suggestions about its length, organization, tables, and figures.
o The bottom line is this: If there is an important idea in the paper, make
constructive comments (e.g., how to streamline the arguments, what parts
should be cut) and help the authors publish the paper.
o If not, say so frankly. There is no point in beating about the bush. If the
paper is clearly below the journal standards, detailed comments are
unnecessary.
o If you e-mail your report, go to Document Property and delete your name.
Your computer may automatically record your name as the author of the report,
which may be accidentally transmitted to the author.
5. When you write a negative report, avoid citing your own papers
o Like animals, referees often leave their marks in their reports.
o If you vote against publication, do not cite your papers. Someday the author
will become a referee and return the "favor" in the next round.
o The paradox of refereeing is this: When you are a referee, you are the
expert. When the other person becomes a referee of your paper, he or she
becomes the expert. Circumstances can change.
o Do not say in the report whether the paper should be accepted or rejected.
This belongs in the cover letter.
o Be careful with your negative reports. Do not demoralize the authors.
o If you consistently recommend rejection of all papers in your area, people
will stop doing research in your area. Soon the topic becomes obsolete and so
do you.
o Moreover, soon the negative word gets around and people in the profession
might figure out who you are.
o If your published paper is relevant, you may cite it, but it should be done
without hinting at the identity of the referee. Do not cite your unpublished
papers.
6. Write more than one paragraph
o If you do not, you are not a sincere referee, whether you are famous or not.
You should have given the job to others who would devote more time and care to
the review.
o Remember the authors have spent several months to years to complete the
paper. They deserve more attention.
o Remember the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

7. If there is a new important idea, help the author to publish it
o Your recommendation should be independent of whether the authors have cited
your papers or not.
o Do not use the report as an opportunity to force the author to cite your
paper if it is tangentially related. This is unethical.
o Divine beings don’t write papers (What would be the point?) All papers
written by mortals have problems. Your role is not in finding all the faults
in the paper.
o If the author can fix the problems with reasonable effort, do not
overemphasize the faults. Then recommend publication (in the letter).
8. Write something good, something bad
o Mortals cannot write “perfect” papers. Even the best paper has some
problems, and you can ask the author to make improvements.
o You also can say something nice about the worst paper. Remember you are
dealing with a person, and your report should not inordinately demoralize the
author.
o Remember the days when you were a tadpole before you write a nasty report.
o You can recommend rejection for good reasons and still be kind to the
author.
9. Reports should be based on the ideas in the paper
o The first paragraph should be a summary of the contribution. The editor is
not knowledgeable in all areas.
o Your evaluation should be based solely on the merit or ideas contained in
the paper,
o And not on who wrote the paper.
o Do not make comments demoralizing the author in the report. Thomas Edison’s
mother was reportedly told by his teacher that Thomas was “addled” and will
never amount to anything.
o If there is a writing problem, it should be noted.
o Remember that English is spoken by only 8% of the world population.
o A righteous referee shows no favoritism. There is no justification for
favoritism.
10. Avoid pointing out mathematical errors
o Unless you are absolutely sure.
o If you are wrong, the author will protest, and the second referee might
agree.
o If you lose credibility, your future papers also are suspect.
o Instead of saying the authors made a mistake, you can say you cannot obtain
the same result.
o But if you are certain, say so and explain why.
11. If it is hopeless, say so, and save the authors from further misery
o Don't try to be too nice in order to salvage an unpublishable idea.
o Being a good referee does not mean you try to help everybody publish in that
journal.
o Inherent capacities cannot be exceeded. Regardless of your suggestions, the
author cannot improve the quality of the paper more than 50%. Remember this
when you recommend revision.
o Positive recommendations should be based on the quality of an anticipated
revision.
Qustions and Answers
If you have comments or questions, please contact Kwan Choi at
kchoi@iastate.edu.
1. The corresponding editor resigned. What should I do with the revised paper?

o While I was preparing a revised version, I noticed that the co-editor who
oversaw my submission is no longer a co-editor of that journal. In this case,
how would this affect the status of my paper in the near future? Is it
possible to go through a new round with another editor and his/her own choice
of referees? (Jaejoon Woo, OECD)
o Usually the corresponding editor is responsible for editorial decisions for
papers he or she received for about a year. Submit the revised version to the
editor who made the initial editorial decision.
o The resigning editor still wants to relinquish his responsibility quickly.
The revised version should be submitted within a few months.
o Otherwise, the editorial decision may be delegated to a new editor who may
not be as favorable toward your paper as the first editor.
2. Professional technical editors are helpful
o I have found that a professional technical editor is also very helpful for
struggling beginning writers who have English as a first language (Bob
Coleman).
o Professional technical editors can make many useful suggestions. You can
accept some or all of their suggestions. It does not really matter whether
English is one's first language or not.
3. Where do I find a copy editor?
o Since I am not a native speaker, I want somebody to help me to check the
grammar and polish the paper. I understand that the service is not free, and I
am willing to pay. In fact, I am willing to pay a premium, if the work can be
finished before Thanksgiving. (Xioayan Zhang).
o Contact the English department of your institution to locate copy editors.
There should be many editors who can help you. They usually charge $10 - 20
per hour. Even graduate students in English department are very good.
Sometimes retired professors are willing to copyedit papers or theses.


Read more!