This is a great article by Matthew Spiegel (editor of the RFS) on the current status of publication requirements and the fact that referees ask for too many robustness tests and changes rather than evaluating whether or not the article has passed the bar to be published.
I maybe biased due to not having that many years down the road but here is my take. Of course referees usually make great suggestions and help to improve a lot a paper, but Matthew is right that often the need to play the game of pleasing referees makes papers unnecessarily long and the review process more annoying to everyone.
The fact that introductions are now four times longer than in the 80s is great example of this gaming taking place. In the end, as economists say, it all boils down to setting proper incentives.
No comments:
Post a Comment