An AER editor gives a rare insight
by Benjamin on August 6, 2009
Today I came across a little gem of a paper called ”Edifying Editing” by Preston McAfee, editor at the AER and Economic Enquiry (formerly the Western Economics Journal) on how he approaches the job of being an editor (thanks to Andy Denis). He explains what editors look for in paper submissions and where the holes are. The (10 page) paper is well worth a read for anyone submitting papers to journals. While
It is a management truism that having a vision based on false hypotheses is better than a lack of vision
McAfee justifies this position, and I would tend to agree that some overall vision in editing a journal is pretty essential, and he suggests there is a difference between a vision and an agenda – where the latter will worsen a journal. He dispels the idea about a ‘top school conspiracy’, arguing that the causality runs the other way (i.e. publishing in top journals get you into top schools, not vice versa).
McAfee offers a lot of insight into getting your papers published and the process; for me in particular the advice on introductions and conclusions struck a chord, and the paper is well worth a read:
The difference between an introduction – in which one motivates a problem and summarizes the findings – and a conclusion is that the reader has actually gone through the body of the paper at the point where they encounter the conclusion. Thus, the kinds of points you can make are different. If, after finishing the body of the paper, you really have nothing more to say, it is not clear why anyone wants to read the paper. The conclusion should be more than just a summary of the paper.
