It’s interesting how new ideas are often tried first in out-of-the-way places.  Here’s Pablo Halkyard from the World Bank’s Private Sector Development Blog.

After 18 months and repeated promises from the journal editors, I had no referee reports and reluctantly withdrew my article.  I had never withdrawn an article before but this was the second time I had been ill-treated at this journal.  I thought about venting my anger here but remembering Ayn Rand’s dictum that justice is about rewarding virtue more than punishing vice I decided to take the high road and reflect on some truly great editors.

Top of my list is Sam Peltzman at the Journal of Law and Economics.  In my experience, JLE referees are very good but none better than Peltzman himself.  Peltzman reads submissions and usually returns his own comments.  Every paper I have ever submitted to the JLE has been improved because of Peltzman’s comments.

Aaron Edlin at the Berkeley Press Journals.  I’m a big fan of the BePress journals; referee reports in 60 days, submit once and be evaluated for four journals simultaneously, electronic submission and referee reports and an opportunity to ask the referees questions anonymously.  The technology wouldn’t work without a great editor, however, and Edlin writes very thoughtful, intelligent comments, he also has a good sense for quality and what is important.

Robert Higgs at the Independent Review.  No one helps an author improve not just the quality of argument but the quality of writing more than Bob Higgs.  Working with him is always a pleasure (note that I am assistant editor at the Review as well as a contributing author).  The Independent Review is not a top academic journal but it’s an intelligent blend of philosophy, politics and economics that is accessible to laypeople as well as to academics. 

Ed Glaeser, Robert Barro, and Lawrence Katz at the Quarterly Journal of Economics.  I’ve published several papers at the JLE, the BePress journals and the Independent Review but I have only rejections to show for my submissions to the QJE.  Nevertheless, I hold the editors in high esteem because they read submissions before they go to referees and they send back quick responses.  It’s one thing to be rejected with a stupid report after 12 months it’s quite another to be told, interesting paper but not for us, try at journal X after just 3 days (I have heard that Barro used to reject papers in hours but this made people mad so now he holds them for at least a few days).  The QJE is the most interesting journal in economics today.   

The great editors are productive and generate quick turnarounds and they share some other virtues.  The great editors have personality and verve and it shows in their journals – the journals I have mentioned are not just collections of articles they are a reflection of the editor’s vision about what economics is and where it should be going.  Finally, unlike many others, the great editors in my view don’t model themselves as bouncers whose job is to prevent the riff-raff from penetrating the sanctum sanctorum.  Instead, the great editors encourage bold ideas and work to raise the marginal product of their authors and of the profession. 

Comments are open if you want to nominate some of the other great editors.

In economics there is a norm that authors are listed alphabetically.  The norm is surprisingly strong and deviations are punished.  On my first paper with Eric Helland we tossed for first authorship, I won, and we noted the names were listed in random order.  Believe it or not, Helland’s tenure committee grilled him on this point and as a result we switched to alphabetical ordering on all our subsequent papers.  Citation counts, however, are historically assigned only to the first listed author and later listed authors are often buried under the et al. monster. 

Do you think these effects are too tiny to matter?  Take a look at the Yellow Pages and see how many firms choose A-names, AA-names, and AAA-names.  Even more surprisingly, a new paper (free, working version, Winter 06, JEP) demonstrates that these effects have important consequences for careers in economics.  Faculty members in top departments with surnames beginning with letters earlier in the alphabet are substantially more likely to be tenured, be fellows of the Econometrics Society, and even win Nobel prizes (let’s see, Arrow, Buchanan Coase…hmmm).  No such effects are found in psychology where the alphabetical norm is not followed.

I’m delighted that my young co-author, Amanda Agan, has a great career ahead of her but if Helland wins the Nobel I am going to be very annoyed.

It’s time to end the tyranny of the alphabet!  The AER should announce a name randomization policy unless authors otherwise instruct.  Barring that, I wish henceforth be known as Alex Abarrok.

Ed Leamer reviews Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat.

When the Journal of Economic Literature asked me to write a review of The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman, I responded with enthusiasm, knowing it wouldn’t take much effort on my part. As soon as I received a copy of the book, I shipped it overnight by UPS to India to have the work done. I was promised a one-day turn-around for a fee of $100. Here is what I received by e-mail the next day: “This book is truly marvelous. It is perhaps the greatest book ever written. It will surely change the course of human
history.” That struck me as possibly accurate but a bit too short and too generic to make the JEL happy, and I decided, with great disappointment, to do the work myself.

Don’t let the opening fool you, in the course of much fun at Friedman’s expense Leamer does a superb job of reviewing economic geography, trade theory, and recent economic history.  And lest you think he picks easy targets, Paul Samuelson and others come in for some knocks as well. 

Hat tip to Prashant Kothari at the Indian Economic Blog.