1. The Publication Process

2. Publication Steps Pre-Submission Initial Submission Behind the Scenes First Response Revise and Resubmit Revise for Submission elsewhere Acceptance

3. Pre-submission Circulation –Colleagues and conferences –Cold emails –Asking for advice

4. Choosing the Right Journal Start High: but not every paper goes to AER General or Field? Look at recent publications Look at editors Does it make a general point?

5. Key Parts to a Paper Abstract: Be clear on Topic and Major Findings Introduction: Be clear on contribution of paper “It’s not a Mystery Novel” Citations: Find and cite the relevant literature.

6. Initial Submission Typically an on-line system Carefully read the submission guidelines Formatting is usually not an issue at this stage (except, apparently, AER now) Blinded Manuscript

7. Behind the Scenes Assigned to Editor/Associate Editor Desk Rejection –Poor Fit –Too many of topic –Stupid Topic Referees –Typically People who have contributed to the field –Sometimes from your own citations list

8. When do I bug the Editor Six months is a typical waiting time After nine months, you should probably make a polite inquiry. You can demand a decision (guess what it will be…) Always be polite to editors.

9. Journal Response You will receive a letter from the editor and the anonymous referee reports. Read them carefully. Yes referees are idiots… –If they didn’t get it, you didn’t explain it –If they don’t like it, figure out why –It’s a sales job.

10. Rejection Letter Dear Seldon, I have now heard from three referees on your manuscript “Some Macro Thing” (MS2007999) which you had submitted to the **********. After carefully reading the paper and the referee reports, I am sorry to have to tell you that I do not think your paper is suitable for publication in the ****************. While Referee 1 was positively inclined toward the paper, both Referee 2 and Referee 3 raised some substantial objections. Blah Blah Blah – why I agree with the referees and think your paper is not suitable for publication. I am sorry that I do not have better news to report to you. Thank you for submitting your paper …..

11. Revise and Resubmit Letter Dear SmartyPants, I have heard from two reviewers on your manuscript, “Some Micro Stuff” (SEJ MS 2007998) which you submitted to the **********. After reading the paper and the referee reports, I agree with the reviewers’ opinion that your paper is not publishable in its current form in the ************. A long set of paragraphs explaining what I and the referees think… In case you decide to resubmit your paper, be aware that I will send it again to all reviewers for another reading, as the changes requested are many and somewhat substantial. The paper must be better motivated to convince me to publish it. If you resubmit your paper, please resubmit it electronically using the link:

12. Revise and Resubmit Don’t argue with the editor or referee. No really, don’t… Do EVERYTHING they ask for. Response to every point raised. Take the time necessary. Do a thorough job. Nothing annoys a referee or editor more than being brushed off or ignored. R&R is NOT a guarantee.

13. Revise for Submission Elsewhere (rejection) Congratulations (see Gans and Shepherd) you’ve just joined a club with Nobel Prize winners. Yes, referees are idiots… Respond to as many points as you can Is a major revision necessary? Selecting a new journal

14. Acceptance Congratulations! Have a beer. Now get back to work. Follow formatting guides well. Inquires from managing editors (do what they ask, they’re on your side). Look through page proofs carefully. Time lag: Publication may take well over a year.

15. References Dan Hamermesh –JEP Winter 1992 –Other stuff on his web site Gans and Shepherd –JEP Winter 1994 “How Are the mighty fallen”