Title length

Abstract

We document strong and robust negative correlations between the length of the title of an economics article and different measures of scientific quality. Analyzing all articles published between 1970 and 2011 and referenced in EconLit, we find that articles with shorter titles tend to be published in better journals, to be more cited and to be more innovative. These correlations hold controlling for unobserved time-invariant and observed time-varying characteristics of teams of authors.

That is by Yann Bramoullé and Lorenzo Ductor at JEBO, via Michelle Dawson.

Comments

Long titles probably indicate that the authors are addressing a narrower question, while short titles indicate broader and more general results.

+1, good point.

Yeah, you're right - its probably this. Not to mention applications of general theories and models are far more likely to require description of the case or scenario in the title (and also end up citing the shorter titles in the process)

Title: Macroeconomics Is Mainly Mumbo-Jumbo.

Summary: Well it is, isn't it? You all know it, don't you?

Place of publication: The Journal of the Bleedin' Obvious.

An interesting speculation, but more research is needed.

This must be a great article judging by its title.

Self-recommending you could say

Pithy pays! Long titles filled with jargon are a warning that the text is filled with jargon. What's with academics and jargon? It reminds me of back in the day when lawyers used lots of Latin in text (law review articles, briefs, court opinions, etc.). We succeeded in getting past that nonsense through a combination of humiliation and ostracization. I'm not sure that would wok with academics. Maybe assigning bad parking spaces would work.

Great diagnosis; now heal thyself.

Pot, meet kettle.

Or "better" journals have restrictions on title length.

On one hand, it was incredibly liberating. To be able to communicate via images across time and space. To make a representational story of your own life. It gave each person a power they’d never felt. In the end, the power and liberation seems to have been the democratization of celebrity. Everyday people understood what it felt like to be famous. 100 likes for an artististic photograph. A celebrity retweet. There were, of course, unintended effects. The photograph economy also gave rise to a widespread narcissism. Ideas of reference. And that’s on the positive spectrum.

There were also very real and methodical political allowances. People and organizations dedicated to the chess-type warfare of, for instance, white versus black culture were able to inject new and sophisticated representations of lynchings, gas chambers, etc. Child pornography has also found an uptick in the sharing-based photograph model.

Good Stuff

In the common parlance it is called "Baffle them with Bullshit".

But now we know it's true because there is a study. Has it been peer reviewed?

There should be a word that describes clicking through on a blog post and planning to make a comment, only to see that the very first comment expressed precisely what you had planned.

Or maybe there is already such a word. I'm not exactly known for my expansive vocabulary...

"Been there , commented that ?"

The trapped producer.

100 likes for an artististic photograph. 200 likes for a pornographic metaphor.

Academic journal economics is grossly hierarchical. Name authors attract eyeballs with their names, so they write papers with short titles. They also get cites from people trying to look smart. Non-names have to explain what they are doing to the otherwise unimpressed selector / reader / Google robot.

Hazel Meade suggests that short titles imply broader more general results, but it might be just the opposite: that a short title precisely defines a clear result, even though it may be narrow, whereas a long title may simply indicate confusion and not much in the way of results of any sort at all.

But more prestigious journals publish LOWER quality papers in the sense of their replication rate:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037/abstract
Hat-tip to JD at Andrew Gelman's.

Talk about making chicken salad out of chicken shit, this article ......

Comments for this post are closed