Its comprable to the shorter papers in AER.
That said, the truth of the matter is that if you are in a place where people don’t know how to read papers and they only know how to count, then they probably think its like an AEJ or below (how exactly this is determined is unclear).
Rank AER insights
-
-
Troll. It's far less than a top field
Its comprable to the shorter papers in AER.
That said, the truth of the matter is that if you are in a place where people don’t know how to read papers and they only know how to count, then they probably think its like an AEJ or below (how exactly this is determined is unclear). -
We are in the 11-20 bin in the recent US News ranking. A candidate is coming up this year and we valued AER:I as below top fields. Basically a filler, like we would with decent but not top field journals. Part of our decision was based on the quality of the paper which was not at the level of the candidate's other work at top field journals. So perhaps a well cited AER:I could count for more.
-
Same here, top 50
We are in the 11-20 bin in the recent US News ranking. A candidate is coming up this year and we valued AER:I as below top fields. Basically a filler, like we would with decent but not top field journals. Part of our decision was based on the quality of the paper which was not at the level of the candidate's other work at top field journals. So perhaps a well cited AER:I could count for more.
-
Same here, top 50
We are in the 11-20 bin in the recent US News ranking. A candidate is coming up this year and we valued AER:I as below top fields. Basically a filler, like we would with decent but not top field journals. Part of our decision was based on the quality of the paper which was not at the level of the candidate's other work at top field journals. So perhaps a well cited AER:I could count for more.
Similar here. The nice thing about these Insights papers is that they're short enough to quickly read the paper and actually assess quality and contribution instead of looking at the journal name and saying "wow this was a good hit!"
-
We are in the 11-20 bin in the recent US News ranking. A candidate is coming up this year and we valued AER:I as below top fields. Basically a filler, like we would with decent but not top field journals. Part of our decision was based on the quality of the paper which was not at the level of the candidate's other work at top field journals. So perhaps a well cited AER:I could count for more.
Good luck with spreading false information. If you have gone through the review process at Insights you would know better .
-
We are in the 11-20 bin in the recent US News ranking. A candidate is coming up this year and we valued AER:I as below top fields. Basically a filler, like we would with decent but not top field journals. Part of our decision was based on the quality of the paper which was not at the level of the candidate's other work at top field journals. So perhaps a well cited AER:I could count for more.
Good luck with spreading false information. If you have gone through the review process at Insights you would know better .
His observation is consistent with my experience at my mrm.
-
Wow too many trolls are here. An AP from HRM econ department. AER Insights is counted equivalent to/slightly below top 5 in my department. I’ve spoken with about a dozen of my coauthors and friends at HRM about the ranking of AER:I and most of them said it is equivalent to top 5 or 6.
-
Wow too many trolls are here. An AP from HRM econ department. AER Insights is counted equivalent to/slightly below top 5 in my department. I’ve spoken with about a dozen of my coauthors and friends at HRM about the ranking of AER:I and most of them said it is equivalent to top 5 or 6.
wishful thinking
-
You are just trolling
Wow too many trolls are here. An AP from HRM econ department. AER Insights is counted equivalent to/slightly below top 5 in my department. I’ve spoken with about a dozen of my coauthors and friends at HRM about the ranking of AER:I and most of them said it is equivalent to top 5 or 6.
-
We are in the 11-20 bin in the recent US News ranking. A candidate is coming up this year and we valued AER:I as below top fields. Basically a filler, like we would with decent but not top field journals. Part of our decision was based on the quality of the paper which was not at the level of the candidate's other work at top field journals. So perhaps a well cited AER:I could count for more.
Good luck with spreading false information. If you have gone through the review process at Insights you would know better .
You have been given by 5 different posters the same "false" information. But if you don't believe it and when you are denied tenure despite your AER:I, I am sure a HRM department will pick you up because of the "review process at Insights". Yep, the same review process that ends in one round and there are 10 pages of material to review.