1. The number of published articles has doubled over the past decade

2. It takes longer to produce a paper Source: Kim, Morse and Zingales (2006)

3. Electronic submissions have had an enormous impact

4. Revise-and-resubmit JF rejection rates, 2003-07

5. Journal folklore True or false? A publication in a bad journal has negative value. There is a “Rochester effect.” The RFS won’t publish corporate papers. Send a paper to the JFE first in order to get an assessment of its quality.

6. Sole authorship is disappearing Source: Kim, Morse and Zingales (2006)

7. Co-authorship Co-authoring can lead to enormous collective action problems, but it almost always improves quality. Be careful of co-authoring with your advisor, or with someone of much higher stature. You’ll get no credit, or negative credit. However, having numerous co-authors is a positive signal of quality.

8. Selecting topics Try to be original. Study what no one else is studying. Take risks. Don’t write the n th paper on some topic; try to write the 1 st. Pick topics that hold your own interest.

9. Impact: Publication counts Source: Chung and Cox, JF (1990).

10. Impact: Citation counts 23% of all published articles receive 0 citations. The median number of citations per publication is 2. The 80-20 rule applies: the top 20% of papers receive 80% of the total citations. Source: Ederington, JF (1979)

11. Details about citation counts Source: Alexander and Mabry, JF (1994)

12. Impact: Recent trends (2008 data) H-index: h publications each with at least h citations. –1. Shleifer (48) –2. Barro (39) –3. Tirole & Heckman (tied) (38) –93. Fama (20) –351. Jensen (13) SSRN downloads –1. Jensen (355,533) –2. Fama (247,853) –3. Fernandez (155,799) –25. Shleifer (52,539)

13. Changes in the refereeing process Heavier workloads / less quality control? More rounds Authors are rarely anonymous

14. Referee folklore (all somewhat true) You can disqualify someone as a referee by asking them for comments. Some referees get the same paper over and over again. You can appeal to the editor. Referees can save you from embarrassing mistakes.

15. What can we learn about referees?

16. Invest in becoming a good referee Build goodwill with the editor Impress the editor with your insight Impress the editor with your sense of fairness Sometimes the editor is more interested in reading your referee report than in reading the paper.

17. Where to submit?

18. How do you get promoted? Research quality –Quality ≠ quantity Teaching at an acceptable level Reputation and visibility –Campus seminar invitations –Major conference appearances Your referee is often in the audience Good conference presentations lead to campus invitations

19. Strike while the iron is hot Source: Kim, Morse and Zingales (2006)