More "advice on how to publish in economics journals"

Tyler Cowen:

Via Development Impact, here is the link (pdf).  I agree with most of the recommendations, which come from editors including Robert Moffitt.

via marginalrevolution.com

Each piece in the CSWEP newsletter is a great read especially if you are (1) new at publishing in economics or (2) a veteran researcher, but you gave up research for the rapture, and you didn't get raptured so that now you need a refresher. In addition, I would reiterate #1 and #2 (with a couple of extras) and offer #3 in contrast to the advice you usually get:

1. Don't write a long paper (20-30 pages is usually sufficient). My immediate reaction as a referee is to groan and procrastinate reading it. Then when I do get around to reading it I'm not happy about what the author and editor is asking me to do. Do you want your referees in that frame of mind? Write up all of your robustness checks and sensitivity analyses as appendices and either (a) post it as an online working paper and put it in your references or (b) refer to the "available upon request" results in a footnote.
2. If you get a rejection at one journal, follow at least some of the advice of the referees before you resubmit to another journal. Editors at each of the journals you submit to choose referees from your reference list, papers that are missing from your reference list, the Google Scholar, Scopus or other similar means. It is quite surprising how often the same names pop up. I've refereed the same paper at different journals more than once (when you try to avoid the task by telling the editor that you have refereed it before they almost always ask you to go ahead and review it again). The easiest referee report to write is the one that you already wrote.
3. Don't overshoot with your journal choice. I've never understood the typical advice that if the journal you first submit your paper to results in a revise and resubmit then you didn't shoot high enough. Typically, even when you don't aim at the highest journal level your first submission is a rejection. So let's say you aim even higher (AER, QJE etc.), then your first two submissions will be rejections and you are on your third journal, the clock is ticking, and you have other papers you would rather work on. 

That said, there are exceptions to each of these rules:

1. You are the most important economist in the world and your work deserves its own special issue at a major journal.
2. Your referee is an idiot.
3. You really think the paper has a chance, you are actually a top economist, you are a mid-level economist and have never experienced the thrill of getting rejected at a top journal, ...