Home
> economic journals > How to get published in ‘top’ economics journals
How to get published in ‘top’ economics journals
from Lars Syll
February, 2015 at 09:56 | Posted in Economics | Leave a comment
By the early 1980s it was already common knowledge among people I hung out with that the only way to get non-crazy macroeconomics published was to wrap sensible assumptions about output and employment in something else, something that involved rational expectations and intertemporal stuff and made the paper respectable. And yes, that was conscious knowledge, which shaped the kinds of papers we wrote.
Paul Krugman
More or less says it all, doesn’t it?
And for those of us who do not want to play according these sickening hypocritical rules — well, here’s one good alternative.
Leave a Reply
—– look inside —– $5.94 / $20.00
—– look inside —– $4.90 / $8.00
—– look inside —– $15.99
—– look inside —– $5.99 / 12.99
—– look inside —– $5.93 / $12.99
—– look inside —– $4.97 / $9.90
—— Ugarteche, Puyana and Madi ——
Gerson Lima / Maria Alejandra Madi
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
————— Michael Hudson ————–
Maria Alejandra Madi / Jack Reardon
————- Edward Fullbrook ————-
—————— Steve Keen —————–
————— Richard Smith —————
————– Gustavo Marques————
– Victor Beker and Beniamino Moro –
————– Lars Pålsson Syll ————-
—————– Stuart Birks —————-
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Mauro Gallegati ————–
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Real-World Economics Review Blog 
“More or less says it all, doesn’t it?”
Yes, Lars. As for the “alternative”, even there scientists have difficulty meeting the expectation of scholars that every view be set in the context of what other scholars have written, there being little understanding of those who study the real world and make radical discoveries for themselves. In any context, what has no precedent there can only be pointed to. Compared with relying on someone else’s statements, looking for oneself can be hard work, even if feasible. That is a difficulty of fundamental science, not a criticism of scholarship. Scientists need to know what other scientists have discovered, for (educational challenges and collaboration excepted) there is little point in re-inventing the wheel.
It seems to me that all of us here on the RWER blog are agreed on the problem, but disagree on the solution. What are effective strategies for breaking the stranglehold of false and hazardous economic theories on the academia, and what are the right sets of theories to replace them? Since a concerted effort is needed, we need to find a minimal platform on which heterodox economists agree as a common agenda for change.
“What are effective strategies for breaking the stranglehold of false and hazardous economic theories on the academia”
My objection is to make academia the place where thinking about economics is exclusively located. No historian would do that, unless he were writing about the history of economic theory. And why do that since there is much more to the economy than that.