by Uri Ben-Zion* and Barry Keating? While writing is an essential means of com munication ... are Gordon Tullock's The Organization of Inquiry,. Paul Downing's.
HOW TO FABRICATE AN ARTICLE: THE AUTHORS' VIEW by Uri Ben-Zion*
and Barry Keating?
While writing is an essential means of com in the academic community, the output munication of writing serves inmany disciplines as the sole or, at least, an important measure in the evaluation of a university professor. An economic analysis of "writing" seems there
in the fore interesting and important. However, is there economic literature very only published limited discussion regarding the analysis of academ the important ic research and writing. Among contributions in this topic, which we are aware of, are Gordon Tullock's The Organization of Inquiry, Paul Downing's "On the Economics of Publishing in Economics Journals" and the recent paper by Alice Vandermeulen "How to Fabricate an Article," from which we "borrowed" the title of this article. This last paper is partly based on the experience ofMs. Vandermeulen as the editor of an important
economic journal and it contains useful suggestions and recommendations. We feel, however, that some of these suggestions can be classified as the editor's view concerning the "desired characteristics" of the inflow of submitted papers. This paper, on the other hand, emphasizes the author's point of view and discusses the author's optimal strategy to obtain a reputation in the academic profession by way of writing. The firstpart of the paper deals with the economic analysis of the process of writing, emphasizing the production function of reputation, which we view as essential in an optimization model of a university professor.
The second part of the paper presents some rele vant implications for an optimal strategy. Some of these implications can be derived in a rigorous way from the economic model, while other implications are more intuitive, influenced by the authors' own experience in writing as well as on unpublished in the comments and gossip among colleagues context of informal discussions. Reading about writing is usually a stale, flat, and one. unprofitable experience as well as a tedious *
Department
I Department This paper Polytechnic of the Center
Brevity in this paper is the soul of advice. We have included only essential points in our discussion of article production, and expect that each individual will develop further the suggestions given in light of his own experiences. The suggestions here may be used either systematically or eclectically, and certainly no claim ismade that comprehensive use of these suggestions insures success. The Production Function of An Article As
we
economists
are
trained
to analyze
a pro
duction process by its formal production function. The simplest case for such a production function is
x=f(h)
(1)
where x = tl
=
the output of new articles corrected by quality and length the authors'
time.
We will assume that we can measure x as an index of output which takes into account the number of papers, the length of the papers and their quality, and view x as a net addition to the authors' reputa tion. The simple production function (1) can be described as the "Robinson Crusoe," equivalent of a university professor, who is producing the output x, without taking any advantage of the outside market and not allocating resources (time) accord ing to his relative advantage. For an author that responds to market conditions, itwould be better to extend the production function as follows : x=f(h9Vl9V2,...VH)
(2)
where Vt denote market inputs which are used by the professor in addition to his own time. A partial list of market inputs are as follows : (1) Time of a secretary (2) Time of a research assistant (3) Computer time
of Industrial and Management (Haifa, Israel). Engineering, Technion Institute. of Economics, Virginia Polytechnic at Virginia was written while Professor Ben-Zion was a visiting professor at the Center for Study of Public Choice for useful comments. Financial Tullock support Institute and State University. We are grateful to Professor Gordon For
Study of Public
Choice
is gratefully acknowledged.
64
Sage Publications Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to The American Economist www.jstor.org
®
(4) Purchased input (eg. special tapes and data sets) (5) Cost of creating your own data set inputs faces a budget
A professor buying market constraint :
I P?Xi
=
lo
where I0 is the size of the research budget of the professor1 (assume that the inputs are measured in dollar terms such that they have unit price = 1 for all i). In this framework we can view Pt the author not as "just one of the inputs" but also as a manager, whose managerial ability may affect the production process, and the ability of the firm to stay in business. In fact even the budget con straint I0 is affected by the managerial ability as well as time inputs of the author since he can apply for grants either from inside money or outside money. Taking this enterprenurial activity in ac count we can write the complete production process as X=f(tl9Sl9Vl9VH)f{tl9Sl9Vl9...,Vn)
(3)
s.t.5>i=/o(*i) tx+
e1tSl
=
Tx
where St is the author's time spent as a manager, and Ex the author's entreprenurial activity in "grant seeking." The equilibrium condition for simply yields that the optimal time allocation in all uses is the same2 of time marginal productivity which means that in the optimal solution the author allocates his time to direct production, project supervision and grant seeking activity up to the point that each activity yields the same marginal output per unit of time.3 In general the specific form of the production function depends on the type of the research (theoretical or empirical), personal characteristics of the author, and the topic of thepaper. The message from this formulation, is that an author should view his role in the production function of a paper, as a fund seeker, a manager and a "self-employed" researcher.4
For any given amount of money or a given "Bundle ofMarket Input" the author should con sider seriously the value of his time. Authors with excellent programming ability may find it optimal to use a much less efficientprogrammer, a research assistant. A secretary who types from "impossible" drafts may save the time of copying the paper into a readable form. The U.S. Government subsidizes 80 % of some research assistants' time if the pro
fessor
hires
students.
"work-study"
Some
"very
ex
pensive" data collection work can actually be done with limited and potentially available resources. A special form of production of reputation is the case of joint author through publication can write the We joint paper production as ship. Xi X2
= =
T2
... other factor)
F2(Tl5 T2
... other factor)
Fi(Tu
where F1 and F2 can be viewed as the reduced form of the production process of reputation as functions of total time input in research. T? is the total time input of author i which is the sum of time input, and grant time inputs, managerial = 1,2 ...). seeking time input i (i X??is
the production
of reputation to author 1.
X2?is
the production
of reputation to author 2.
A joint paper is therefore optimal to the two authors if there is a net gain in reputation to both5 > 0. There is no rea ?i.e. dXJdT2 > ?dX2ldTl son for an "equal sharing" of the authors on all activities while each author can specialize in what he can do best. For example, one author may be involved in a review of the literature, finding a research topic and writing a draft while the other
may be involved in grant seeking activity,managing and directing the empirical work, and editing the first draft. In principle the "Best Mate" co-author for a one who can have writer No. is the 1) (say given on his effect higher reputation (T2- (dXl/dX2)) where the selection ismade over the population of relevant co-authors. In principle we can apply a "theory ofmarriage" The Case
to this problem.
forMultiple
Projects
In a "risky world" an author may want to have a portfolio of ongoing projects rather than a single individual paper. If an author has good managerial ability, or uses the joint author's technique, itmay be optimal for him to work on many papers at a time. For example an author may have a number of research assistants, each one working on a single project, or may have a joint project with different
in possibly different areas. Working on multiple projects may increase the probability of successful papers and reduce the risk of total failure, while a concentrated period of intensive work on a single project might lead to an unac co-authors,
ceptable paper. 65
Length of an Article A long article which is the result of an intensive amount of work is again a relatively risky invest ment. There is a significant risk that a good paper in which you have invested a large amount of time will not be accepted by a referee. A major paper may also involve a much longer period of waiting before a final decision ismade since most journals discriminate against major articles. Shortening of a long paper to a few short papers may increase the probability of acceptance. Long papers inmany cases are a luxury of the well established professor or of authors who are lucky enough to get their manuscripts accepted before submission (i.e. invited papers). The short article approach may also enable the author to work on multiple projects. Some authors feel that they can and should say as much as they can on a given topic. Our reminder here is that authors have long academic careers ahead of them, and there is no reason to concentrate everything one knows into one long paper.
Selecting a Topic forResearch and/or a Journal for Submission Selecting the topic for research, is simply a question of allocation of the author's time in the fields in which his expected marginal value of productivity in producing reputation is highest and it is analogous to production by a multi-product firm.
In considering the marginal productivity the author should consider his abilities in direct re of the project, and raising of search, managing funds. An increase in availability of funds will increase the attractiveness of an area, and a switch to that area is likely to occur. Authors who have a relative advantage in the management of large empirical projects, may switch theoretical fields in order to utilize more efficiently their managerial ability. In general there is some cost inmoving between different academic fields, which reduces academic mobility. Authors who are already working in a number of fields may find themove to a new field easier than workers who tend tomake a very large investment in one particular field. Finally, the probability of final acceptance of the manuscript plays the same role as the price of output for a multi-product firm.An increase in the probability of acceptance of a paper (given quality 66
in any given area) will lead the author to more research into this area. It seems logical to us that the publication of The Bell Journal of Economics (which, by the way, is the only journal we know of which pays authors and referees) together with the increase in availability of research grants in the area of regulation has increased significantly re search in the general area of regulation and regu lated industries. A general rule with regard to the selection of topic is to "be open." While one can search a topic by spending long hours reading in the library, this is not always the most efficientmethod. Keep your mind open outside the library and the office; talking with a friend,or just waiting in line in a restaurant, may lead to some idea, which can be developed into a successful original paper. Serendipity is not uncommon to successful authors. When selecting a journal for submission of an article, or alternatively, selecting the target journals for a proposed article, a useful tool is to think of articles as having two characteristics. It is the combination of these characteristics which will appeal to particular journals. Figure 1 diagrams these characteristics as the axes for consideration.6 On the horizontal axis is the range of the article, that is, the category into FIGURE
1.
LEVELOF DIFFICULTY
O
t B
OF RANGE SUBJECT
which the article might be placed by a casual reader. The vertical axis is the degree of difficulty of the article in terms of individuals in the profession. Any particular article may be thought of as a point such as A or B. The editorial policies of particular journals, however, would be diagrammed as the ovals C, D and E. Since some journals cover a broad range of areas within economics but limit the level of diffi culty of the articles (equivalent to oval C) this would be an appropriate medium for an article such as article B. Other journals cater to narrowly defined articles with a high degree of difficulty, such as oval D. Article A might find publication in journal D appropriate. There are, of course, journals which while narrowly defined in subject area, cover a large range over degree of difficulty such as journal E. As a rough example of such a classification scheme consider the American Eco nomic Review and the Southern Economic Journal as type C. Operations Research and the Journal of Economic Theory would be type D. Public Choice and theNational Tax Journal are examples of type E. Obviously, articles which do not clearly fall into a particular editorial category will most likely be turned down by a journal.7 The Degree
of "Perfection"
industrial engineers and inventors would Many like to develop their products to perfection. How ever products sold in themarket are often produced at less than "state of the art" degrees of perfection. This is because the marginal costs of increasing the quality are above the marginal revenue from such increase. The production of a journal article is not much different, the quality of a paper should be high enough to insure a serious reading by the editor and
referee
. . . but
in many
cases
additional
im
provement which may be expensive in terms of the researcher's own time have only minor effects on the probability of acceptance; in many cases the referee's ideas on a desired extension and revision may be in directions that the researcher had pre viously considered as unimportant. In a simple model, the quality of a submitted paper can be determined by marginal cost-benefit analysis, using your shadow price of time, as well as shadow prices of othermarket inputs.The optimal final quality may therefore depend, for example, on the availability of research assistant time as well as secretary "free time." Itmay be, at times, optimal
to retype a paper before submission, but not to rewrite it. In revising the paper for publication after the referee comments, an author may spend more time on improving the quality of his work of art according to his own taste and the tastes of the buyer's representative (the referee). The Referee The referees are members of the profession who in most cases are not paid, and being a referee does not always enhance one's professional stand the current system of refereeing ing. Consider which applies to journals.8 The low incentive for refereeing tends to reduce the time input of a referee per paper, to reduce the percentage of papers read by the authorities in the field and to reduce the overall quality of the refereeing service. The current system has important implications for the author of manuscripts. It has been the thesis of Gordon Tullock for some time that the basic problem with journals is that they are not edited. This point of view is one the scholar will understand only after many sub missions to the journals and reception of the subse quent referee's comments. The actual decision on whether or not to publish a particular article is largely delegated by the editor of a journal. The referee is most often an individual with expertise in the author's subject area; he receives a subset of the articles submitted to the journal and some vague (if any) instructions resembling a decision rule.
This practice which most "editors" adhere to, of using referees to make decisions, should be noted by potential authors. Since the referee is an expert in the author's subject area, the author can be assured that the article will not be judged only on itsmerits. The referee has invested a great deal in his own human capital and has likely been chosen a referee because he is an established conventional individual in his field. An unconventional article submitted to such a referee will be lucky indeed to find one willing to take a risk. Lewis Dexter of
Harvard
has called such unconventional articles "imperfectly socialized" in a profession and likely to offend established members of the profession.9 The author who wishes tomaximize publications should then shy away from innovative work and content himself with articles which will please the audience to whom he is writing (i.e. the audience of conventional referees). Since referees, like others, like to have their own biases reinforced, an author 67
eventually to an improvement of the system from which all could benefit.
is exhorted to produce minor modifications of the existing theory or empirical verification of strongly held beliefs.
Notes A Note on the Psychology ofWriting a Paper
assume that he can exchange inputs at the market price, such that given a bundle of market input he can re time. In place his secretary's time with research assistance a more complicated and real world this assumption is not
1. We
Many authors who have passed a long career of in the process of their graduate examinations a have studies, high probability of rejection (or articles. The first few rejections in first their failure) before a significant success, together with a school's pressure for publication from its facultymay cause the undesired psychological aspect of aversion for and an inefficient allocation of re publication sources in the production process of articles. One possible solution to reduce thepsychological block (disturbance) on productivity is to accept the view that publication is a risky business with high probability of failure. Thus a rejection should not be viewed as a distrust in the personal and pro fessional ability of the author but a way of life. One possible procedure to avoid rejection is by avoiding submission of papers to journals, un fortunately, this is also a sure way not to publish any
always true. 2. Assuming that we are not 3.
4.
dX/dtl
=
In more realistic cases the author can buy back his own time (from teaching) and thus this increases the incentives for grant seeking activities. In principle, a successful paper will increase the author's and a researcher has a clear future income (See Downing) incentive to spend "real" out of pocket money to carry on
input money to buy market inputs. 5. Note that a reputation to any author from a joint paper possibly less than that of a single author paper.
is
6. This
is taken from Gordon Tullock's "What's diagram Wrong with Editing?" are subjective and 7. Note however that the classifications that a journal's characteristics may change over time. on improving the system see Tullock's 8. For suggestions
9.
"What's Wrong with Editing?" an interesting example of such a phenomena see a communication and the introduction by Lord by Dexter Secretary of the Royal Rayleigh, Society, to a paper by
For
which was rejected by the Royal paper was published only in 1892, by Rayleigh who calls it a remarkable paper, and says "The to publish it at the time was a misfortune which ommission of the subject by ten retarded the development probably or fifteen years" (Nature Vol. 46, May, 1892).
Mr.
J. J. Waterston,
Society
10. The
in 1845. The
same
true for grants.
is also
caution readers not to equate acceptance Information on this subject rates with journal quality. of Houston shows recently collected by the University some prestigious journals with relatively high acceptance rates.
11. The authors would
References L., "Letter to the Editor," American Political Science Review, (June, 1975). in Economics of Publishing P., "On the Economics Downing, in Frontiers of Economics, Journals," Blacksburg, Virginia: 1975. Public Choice Monograph, Dexter,
In this paper we have analyzed the production of reputation in an academic profession by the production of articles. While themodel may be a simplified description
68
solution.
In many cases is not available. if grant money we find that university professors use their time in an inefficient allocation rather than using their
Conclusion
We hope that an increase in the understanding of the system in which we all operate, will lead
in a corner
(? dX/dVi dV.jd^dllde,.
research
articles.10
readers.
=
however
Writing several papers which are considered in approximately the same period of time by different journals may increase the probability of success, which may reduce the psychological impact of a a with authors strong need (or rejection. Also, to publish something may apply to lower pressure), (which sometimes have higher quality journals acceptance rates)11 rather than to aim at the best possible journal. Writing notes, comments and short papers may also be a useful procedure to fulfill the urgent pressure to publish so that authors will have the easiest atmosphere inwhich to devote time to long term research work.
of the academic world, we hope that itwill increase the understanding of this process, and that such understanding may be useful at least for some
dX/ds,
Raleigh, (May
L., "Introduction 1892), 30-33.
by Lord Rayleigh,
Nature,
G., The Organization of Inquiry. Durham, N. C. :Duke University Press, 1966. "What's Wrong with Editing'," presented at themeeting 1974. of the Southern Economic Association, Vandermeulen, A., "How to Fabricate an Article," The American Tullock,
--.
Sec. R.S.,"
Economist,
(Spring,
1975), 55-59.
