Close

Complete Captcha

• 10 years - 4 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 0 Goods vs 0 No Goods

1. Economist
   b918
   

   Assume that one of your paper is not that good but however you don't see how to improve it.

   How bad should be a paper such that it should not be submitted to a top 3?

   The rate of acceptance is less than 10% so tons of not good enough papers are submitted (and the same applies to 2nd tier journals). A submission has a cost in terms of money, time and eventually reputation. A rejection could have the benefit of good insights from referees.

   Is it then always worthy to submit to a top 3 journal?

   My question is general, but I'm particularly interested in the case of a very young scholar (fresh phd or just phd student).

   10 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

2. Economist
   66c6
   

   Ask your advisor, or a colleague you trust about where a good outlet for your paper is. Then submit it to the tier above that journal.

   e.g., They say submit it to Land Economics, then you submit it to JEEM first.

   or They say Economic Inquiry, then you submit it to the top field journal (in my case JEEM).

   I'd say to only shoot for the top-tier general interest if they recommend sending it to a 2nd-tier general interest (say IER or EJ).

   10 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

3. Economist
   4159
   

   ^I think that is good advice. Shooting too high has some costs in terms of reputation - your paper will be looked at by AEs and referees from your area, and if the paper sucks they negatively update about you.

   10 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !

4. Economist
   66c6
   

   Also, I know few tenured economists who only submit papers to the top journals. They submit papers there that they think are good enough for that journal, but papers they think are "not that good" they submit elsewhere.

   10 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply

Post

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.