Wrong. We may never beat the engineering and CS folk in terms of the algorithms and efficiency but they're quite awful at thinking about econ/ marketing aspects of the technical skills. And forget about the psychological skills, it's nowhere on their radar. There is definitely a place for all three in the current marketing landscape. But my point is that Quant marketing is not equal to CS.
Marketing can be learned. CS, takes a much longer time to learn.
Wrong. We may never beat the engineering and CS folk in terms of the algorithms and efficiency but they're quite awful at thinking about econ/ marketing aspects of the technical skills. And forget about the psychological skills, it's nowhere on their radar. There is definitely a place for all three in the current marketing landscape. But my point is that Quant marketing is not equal to CS.Marketing can be learned. CS, takes a much longer time to learn.
No it doesn't. Learning CS is way more straightforward than learning marketing or econ. You can be a math genius and have 0 economic intuition, you won't publish anything. And this is actually more common than you would imagine.
It aint Econ. There is no value in solo papers. Build teams. Do excellent work.
I see most papers in the top marketing journals are coauthored (many times 4 authors or even more). Does the job market value a solo-author top publication? Is it worth just slightly above a two-authored or even three-autored publication?
I see most papers in the top marketing journals are coauthored (many times 4 authors or even more). Does the job market value a solo-author top publication? Is it worth just slightly above a two-authored or even three-autored publication?
This guy keeps coming back with the same question. In economics too, most top journal papers are co-authored, many with 4 or more now. Read this.
https://eml.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/CardDellaVignaTop5PapersJEL2013.pdf
"Figure 4 shows that the number of authors per paper has also grown steadily, though less quickly than average paper length. In the early 1970s, three quarters of articles were single-authored, and the average number of authors in a paper was 1.3. By the early 1990s, the fraction of single-authored papers had fallen to 50 percent, and the mean number of authors reached 1.6. Most recently (2011–12), more than three quarters of papers have at least two authors and the mean number of authors is 2.2."
"Similarly, relative to a single-authored paper, mean log citations for a paper with two, three, or four authors are 0.21, 0.26, and 0.48 higher, respectively, implying 23 percent, 30 percent, and 61 percent more citations. The findings on the impact of paper length and number of coauthors are consistent with Hamermesh and Oster (2002) and Ellison (2011)."
Never saw a candidate getting hired because of a solo authored paper. Saw plenty of people could not publish their job market paper or other papers later and get only 10 citations in 5 years... because their work was solo.
I know that the trend of coauthoring extends to econ. But I know that in econ the job market places a large value on a solo-authored paper. My question is whether the same happens in marketing.
Regarding the citation count, I dont think its a fair comparison. Many citations are driven by the author (either self citations, or just because the network of people who know the author, and hence know the paper, will be likely to cite it; of course the more authors, the larger these effects are, ie, more self citations and more people aware of the paper via awareness of the authors; nothing necessarily to do with the quality of the paper)
I know that the trend of coauthoring extends to econ. But I know that in econ the job market places a large value on a solo-authored paper. My question is whether the same happens in marketing.
IT DOES NOT. I think all the times you asked the question, you got the same answer.
Regarding the citation count, I dont think its a fair comparison. Many citations are driven by the author (either self citations, or just because the network of people who know the author, and hence know the paper, will be likely to cite it; of course the more authors, the larger these effects are, ie, more self citations and more people aware of the paper via awareness of the authors; nothing necessarily to do with the quality of the paper)
TELL THAT TO CARD. This is an analysis of the top 4 journals in Econ. If you think AER, QJE cites are high because of self-cites you are an idiot.
I didn’t just say self cites... If you don’t understand why a larger number of authors leads to more people being aware of the paper (everything else fixed), you are even more of an idiot than I expected... (writing TELL THAT TO CARD in all caps like that already revealed that you are likely retarded, but the fact that you don’t understand this argument means you really are challenged)
I didn’t just say self cites... If you don’t understand why a larger number of authors leads to more people being aware of the paper (everything else fixed), you are even more of an idiot than I expected... (writing TELL THAT TO CARD in all caps like that already revealed that you are likely retarded, but the fact that you don’t understand this argument means you really are challenged)
very intelligent arguments indeed. How did I miss that?!
I agree this can't be driven by self cites but what could be the reason if not networking? Given that the papers were published in the same journal tier, we have it controlled for quality. And the numbers of coauthors by itself obviously can't be the reason.
All these papers meet the minimum threshold, but that does not mean they have the same quality. All are impactful, but there is a wide range of difference in their impact too.
A simple production function argument would suggest that for larger tasks, bigger, harder projects one needs more resources or better people. There are many projects which require people to be on the ground in another country in these journals. Or original data collection which requires time. Some of these are naturally higher quality projects and result in more impactful papers.Team size is endogenous to the amount of work and project quality.