Close

Complete Captcha

• 11 months - 38 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 21 Goods vs 15 No Goods

1. Economist
   860d
   

   what do you think?

   11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

2. Economist
   2417
   

   Only if you're an ungread.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 1 Good 0 No Good !

3. Economist
   737a
   

   demand side here: we seriously discount jmps less than 50 pages long

   11 months ago # QUOTE 6 Good 1 No Good !

4. Economist
   0587
   

   Unfortunately yes. That's why you see these 70+ page jmps

   11 months ago # QUOTE 3 Good 1 No Good !

5. Economist
   446f
   

   No chance of publishing it later on? Too long for any journal.

   Unfortunately yes. That's why you see these 70+ page jmps

   11 months ago # QUOTE 1 Good 0 No Good !

6. Economist
   561e
   

   I have seen a jmp with 144 pages...

   11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

7. Economist
   2417
   

   This is bullsh*t. A JMP needs to be as long as it needs to be, no more no less.

   demand side here: we seriously discount jmps less than 50 pages long

   11 months ago # QUOTE 1 Good 1 No Good !

8. Economist
   32d0
   

   Same as you would send to a journal. 10,000 words and 10 (or so) tables.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

9. Economist
   47c7
   

   It should be readable.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

10. Economist
    cccf
    

    It can't be 20 pages long. But anything over 45 is completely unncessary.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

11. Economist
    d72a
    

    It can't be 20 pages long. But anything over 45 is completely unncessary.

    So 19 or 21 pages is fine just not 20 pages.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 2 No Good !

12. Economist
    116a
    

    It can't be 20 pages long. But anything over 45 is completely unncessary.

    So 19 or 21 pages is fine just not 20 pages.

    I disagree. I only read ones that are exactly 20 pages

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

13. Economist
    1e18
    

    what do you think?

    yes

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

14. Economist
    a4a7
    

    Saw 110 page jmp. 25 pages of substance. Rest is fluff. Stop wasting my time.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 2 Good 1 No Good !

15. Economist
    fb6d
    

    Lol a “star” has 80+ pages. His contribution is exactly 1 page. The rest is just overexplained bluff. It’s pathetic.

    demand side here: we seriously discount jmps less than 50 pages long

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

16. Economist
    3291
    

    Across all journals there needs to be a penalty for too long manuscripts. Wasting everyone’s time.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

17. Economist
    3291
    

    Just out of curiosity: is there a (lengthy) paper out there about “the returns to page length?” I guess the mechanisms would then be:

    + Job search committees do not have time to read JMPs carefully anyway. As a result, the longer, the more sophisticated they think the author is.

    + Same for journal editors.

    + Some other bull crap.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

18. Economist
    d6da
    

    Lol at marginal illiterates pretending to be academics. "Waah waah I can't read 70 pages!"

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

19. Economist
    1206
    

    at least 90. JMP is not a normal paper.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 2 No Good !

20. Economist
    41d0
    

    I have 26 pages and I am doing good in Job Market.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

Reply »