To make the point on what I was saying earlier on the Top 5 journals in economics: getting into one is very very difficult and should not be a prereq for tenure cases. If we continue along this path we will be in an econ mental health crisis. Great work is published everywhere.
List: Top 5 journals in economics should not be a prereq for tenure cases
-
Humble brag. And a dumb point. If we should put less weight on Top 5 pubs in tenure process, it’s not because it is “very very” hard to publish in Top 5, which could be a valid signal of quality, it’s because publishing in Top 5 is less of a signal of quality and more of a signal of status based on PhD pedigree, which is a very noisy signal of quality.
-
I bet less than 20 departments require a top 5. Some of those that require a top 5 get content with a top 5 coauthored with a senior or a big shot. List's tweet is already a fact
Maybe 10 years ago. Now you need a top 5 R&R to even interview for T20 jobs.
Interesting, and partially verifiable. Interview lists are difficult to obtain, but ostensibly job market talk lists are easier to access. So, it should be feasible to create a time series of the percentage of job talks with at least an r&r across all top 20 institutions over the past decade.
-
Humble brag. And a dumb point. If we should put less weight on Top 5 pubs in tenure process, it’s not because it is “very very” hard to publish in Top 5, which could be a valid signal of quality, it’s because publishing in Top 5 is less of a signal of quality and more of a signal of status based on PhD pedigree, which is a very noisy signal of quality.
Yes but think through the equilibrium: the tyranny of the top 5 for tenure at many departments is what, more than anything, has bred the corruption.
If you didn’t NEED a top 5 to get tenure at top schools, we’d have less clubiness.
-
Humble brag. And a dumb point. If we should put less weight on Top 5 pubs in tenure process, it’s not because it is “very very” hard to publish in Top 5, which could be a valid signal of quality, it’s because publishing in Top 5 is less of a signal of quality and more of a signal of status based on PhD pedigree, which is a very noisy signal of quality.
Yes but think through the equilibrium: the tyranny of the top 5 for tenure at many departments is what, more than anything, has bred the corruption.
If you didn’t NEED a top 5 to get tenure at top schools, we’d have less clubiness.This, you people are forgetting the utter corruption at QJE and JPE just accepting it.
-
I think it boils down to people not wanting to spend too much time reading. Collectively focusing on top 5 and a few second tier journals allows everyone at the top to ignite everything else under the excuse that if it's not at the top, it's not important.
Also related to why we don't attribute much value to replications. We like to read big ideas that apply generally and entertain our intellects. Not unimportant boring stuff like checking if our big ideas are right.
-
Never heard of this story
I bet less than 20 departments require a top 5. Some of those that require a top 5 get content with a top 5 coauthored with a senior or a big shot. List's tweet is already a fact
Maybe 10 years ago. Now you need a top 5 R&R to even interview for T20 jobs.
Interesting, and partially verifiable. Interview lists are difficult to obtain, but ostensibly job market talk lists are easier to access. So, it should be feasible to create a time series of the percentage of job talks with at least an r&r across all top 20 institutions over the past decade.
-
I bet less than 20 departments require a top 5. Some of those that require a top 5 get content with a top 5 coauthored with a senior or a big shot. List's tweet is already a fact
Nope, most departments are deluded, they all think they are something special and at the bottom because some guy with one foot in the grave once co-authored a top 5 that was written by his advisor, the expect you to be able to do it solo.
-
I bet less than 20 departments require a top 5. Some of those that require a top 5 get content with a top 5 coauthored with a senior or a big shot. List's tweet is already a fact
Nope, most departments are deluded, they all think they are something special and at the bottom because some guy with one foot in the grave once co-authored a top 5 that was written by his advisor, the expect you to be able to do it solo.
That one guy also got his go-authored top 5 in 1980, when the ratio of submissions to papers published was about a quarter of where it is right now.
-
I bet less than 20 departments require a top 5. Some of those that require a top 5 get content with a top 5 coauthored with a senior or a big shot. List's tweet is already a fact
Nope, most departments are deluded, they all think they are something special and at the bottom because some guy with one foot in the grave once co-authored a top 5 that was written by his advisor, the expect you to be able to do it solo.
That one guy also got his go-authored top 5 in 1980, when the ratio of submissions to papers published was about a quarter of where it is right now.
exactly