Andrew Oswald has a new and interesting paper on what kinds of articles now get published. The piece starts off as follows:
When I was a PhD student, in Oxford in the late 1970s, I was taught nothing about the experimental method or how to weigh evidence, and indeed comparatively little about data. Consciously or subconsciously, we were encouraged to think of economics as a branch of (not very applied) mathematics. My first published paper relied on a fixed-point theorem; it contained no numbers. We were not exposed to, for example, any empirical findings from the psychology literature or the intellectual approach of researchers like epidemiologists.
Amazing, is it not? Turn to p.5 to see one of his basic counts, which puts experimental papers in the lead.