(Alternative title: I'm not being lazy or behind the times, it just takes a long time for research to be published).
It can take at least 6 months, or sometimes as long as 5 years, from the time that an economics paper is written to the point at which it is published. Why is that?
Image source: https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/aldabra-tortoise
**
Step 1: Write the paper. This may take a few weeks/months depending on the difficulty. During the semester, when I'm also teaching, I typically don't get much/any research done. Once I’ve written the first draft, I show it to a bunch of people for feedback (which can take a week to a month, depending on how busy everyone is). I then rewrite it. At this point, it's called a "Working Paper". Proceed to Step 2.
Step 2: Submit the paper to a journal. If the journal is not a predatory/vanity publication, the editor will first review the paper to make sure it is a good fit with the journal (each journal has a theme and an audience). If the editor decides that the paper is not a good fit, they will reject it. This is called a "Desk Reject". This process may take a month. Repeat Step #2 if a Reject decision is received, otherwise proceed to Step 3.
Step 3: If the editor decides the article has potential, they will select outside people who have more expertise in the field ("reviewers" or "referees") to read and comment ("referee reports") on the paper's method and contributions. In economics, this part usually takes 3-9 months. Proceed to Step 4, while beginning Step 1 for a new paper.
Step 4: Once all the referee reports are returned to the editor, the editor will make the decision to reject the paper, accept the paper "as-is", or issue a revise-and-resubmit decision (an "R&R"). At this point, a reasonably "fast" decision since step #2 is 3 months, though 6-9 months is the more likely range. If the paper is rejected, return to Step 2, otherwise proceed to Step 5.
Step 5: The R&R is exactly what it sounds like: I need to revise the paper based on comments from the referees. R&R's are never just “writing” corrections: the comments can be very extensive, requiring more data, or more tests. The process can take several more weeks/months depending on how extensive the R&R is. It is not uncommon in some fields that the responses to the referees becomes 200 pages---when the original work was only 20-30 pages. Proceed to Step 6.
Step 6: Re-submit the revised paper, including a separate file detailing responses to all referee comments. The editor will once again read through the paper. If the changes substantially weakened or change the paper they may decide to reject the paper. If they don’t, they will once again send it out to the referees, who will read the new work. This may take 1-6 months. Referees may have more comments (leading to a second R&R), may advise rejection, or may advise acceptance, or advise another R&R. Second R&R are not unheard of, third round R&R's are every person's nightmare. Notice that if you get a second R&R, you'll be under review at the journal for almost a year. Repeat Step 2 for a rejection, Step 5 for an R&R, and proceed to Step 7 if accepted.
Step 7: Once accepted, the paper will be published. Depending on the journal, this may happen as quickly as a month, other times it may take a year. Most journals now have "advanced access" online to articles before they are officially published. Some journals require that readers pay a fee to access the articles. To be clear, this fee goes entirely to the journal: not the author, referees, or the editor that put the journal together.
Notice that in economics, if all goes well, it usually takes at least 6 months for a paper to get published after it’s been written. And that assumes that the first journal you submit it to accepts it. A long but “normal” publication time can be 2-5 years depending on the sub-discipline.
The good news? As part of the pushback against this, many economists will post their working papers online (and keep updating them) as soon as they are written back in Step 1. (You can always find a list of my working papers on my website). This is unlike many other academic fields where the work is kept guarded and secret until publication. We will also go to conferences and seminars and present our working papers to others in the profession.
If you're looking for the current frontier of economic research, look to working paper sites (SSRN or Economic Papers are two places to start). However, be aware that working papers may have errors in them: so if possible also check out the journal versions when they become available.
Nice post, and quite relevant to the Steemit community.
In many respects, Steemit is essentially a publishing platform. In fact, most of those posts which receive the greatest recognition, and the highest rewards, comprise quality content with staying power.
And as you familiarize yourself with Steemit, you'll notice that the system does work quite well, if not perfectly. There is much that gets lost in the constant stream of posts, and there is a certain number of posts that get recognized and rewarded solely because of the voting power of the authors or their followed group.
As it is, I'll gladly take this excellent platform with a great reward system, complete with its imperfections, over the crony capitalist system that has essentially destroyed our global economy over the past 30+ years.
As for the contention that the whales will take all the Steem and leave only tidbits for the minnows, I really do not foresee that. Of course, it will happen with a few whales, and it will happen to some extent.
But let's hope that the whales understand the one essential thing that the crony capitalists / 10% do not understand: That any flourishing economic system (or business or platform) needs a strong, broad, and vibrant "middle class" in order to survive.
That is, only by encouraging the growth of Steemit's minnows and supporting their growth will the system thrive and the whales succeed.
As ever, Full Steem Ahead.
I absolutely want the intention of the platform to succeed: and while perfection is a noble goal, "good enough" is the realistic goal that gets stuff done.
I think we see the same issue. Crony capitalism is the gain of power and rewards simply because an entity holds power and rewards, not because of any inherent value of their actions. (Which, by the way, is not something any economist supports. It's great for those who get the rewards, but terrible for the health of economic system as a whole). If you think about the class of posts you just described...that's essentially crony capitalism by the definition given above.
Sadly, it will always occur in any system. The question is not how to shut that down, it's how to prevent posts from being lost in the stream because they are not part of the "in-group". The limited voting power, reputation, and steem power all should be sufficient to do so. I'm very curious as to why its not. It speaks to an incentive mis-match: is the allocation within the system off somehow? Trying to calibrate a triple variable based on what people value can be...tricky. (And it is impossible to get perfect)
The way I see it, there's one major difference between crony capitalism and the steemit rewards system.
That is ... In crony capitalism, more and more of the wealth continues to trickle up (or be sucked up), inexorably.
On Steemit, I don't think that will happen, and we Steemers might even be able to prevent that from happening. I for one will do my best to work toward that end.
That would be "good enough."
I had thought steemit would be more immune to cronyism initially, but the GINI coefficients on wealth distribution worry me. As does the incentive to vote on already high powered users (perhaps there should be a logarithmic function in place to force some dispersion? Though I believe that's already in place with reputation, so probably not...).
Given that the reward mechanism in steemit is transparent, the issue should be easier to solve than in the outside world.
Even though I have no idea what a "logarithmic function" is, the idea of "forcing some dispersion" might be worth looking into by the powers-that-be.
I believe witnesses and whales have strong, maybe influential voices in the Steemit ecosystem, so if you (or, less likely, if I) ever rise to that level, we can keep it in mind and work to build or sustain an equitable system.
Sorry, a logarithmic function is just a log function.
For example, in a base-10 log function: log(10)=1; log(100)=2; log(1000)=3 (etc). It's a common rescaling technique makes the difference between 10 and 1000 "smaller".
Well done Professor,
will spread the word on your process and passion. In the mean time Patient Pays, welcome to Steemit!
See you around. cheers!
Congratulations @prof-pieters! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCongratulations @prof-pieters! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP