Don't worry about publications!

[slightlyconfused1]

Often on this forum I see comments about how a prospective applicant should try to publish papers to boost his profile. I need to get this off my chest: both the value and the feasibility of publications are wildly exaggerated on this forum. If you don't have any publications, don't worry---hardly anyone else does!

 

Why? The publication process in economics is simply too long for this to be practical. I don't think I've ever seen an economics graduate school applicant with a good publication that has not been coauthored with a professor. Certainly there is no one like this at MIT.

 

There are a handful of people who manage to publish their undergraduate work in top field journals eventually, but I don't think I've ever seen this happen prior to the admission process. Moreover, the few cases that come close all seem to be in micro theory, which is the one area where it is possible to publish aggressively at an early stage; this is irrelevant, however, for anyone outside the far right tail of mathematical ability.

 

Ultimately, the only way to publish in a decent journal so early is to coauthor with an accomplished professor. Yet in these cases, a publication is not a very useful signal: any professor who has collaborated with you will already be communicating the extent of your contribution in her letter of recommendation. The only situation where I can imagine a "publication" making a difference is when you are at a lower-ranked program and your professor is also unknown, and the fact that the work has been published makes the professor's letter more credible. But this case is almost irrelevant, since it's extraordinarily unlikely that both (1) you will be added as a coauthor to a paper and (2) that paper will be published in a decent journal before you enter graduate school. (Unknown professors, almost by definition, don't publish in selective outlets with such ease!)

 

Of course, many people have "publications" in random, unselective journals, but this isn't a meaningful goal. Groucho Marx comes to mind: "I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member." This is very true. No matter how good you are, it is virtually unthinkable that you will be able to finish the publication process in the short time available to you as an undergraduate (or even as a master's student) in an outlet that commands any respect, at least without a faculty coauthor doing most of the heavy lifting.

 

(I admit that this is where my knowledge of the process frays a little; I'm mainly thinking about graduate programs in the top 20 range. If you're targeting less selective graduate programs, it's possible that they care about publications in low-tier journals. But ex ante, of course, you're almost certainly better off focusing on advanced classes and your undergraduate research, without the distraction of trying to push a paper through the refereeing process.)

 

Moral of the story: if you see people chattering on this board about publications, please don't freak out. Only a sliver of the incoming students at even the most selective Ph.D. programs have publications, and none of these students produced the published research themselves. In 2009 and 2010, even the top candidates on the academic job market (Dave Donaldson and Alp Simsek) didn't have publications in economics, and they got tenure-track jobs at MIT and Harvard. When you're an undergraduate worried about grad school, it's easy to let your imagination run wild and envision hordes of superstars who took functional analysis as freshmen and wrote their first Econometrica articles as juniors. But such people do not exist.

[Liwanyo]

Thanks for the post. (I'm still nervous as hell though.)

[moneyandcredit]

I loved that last sentence. I always imagine an army of Will Hunting clones in the application piles with me, even at lower-ranked schools. I still think I have no chance at the top 30 thanks to my lack of publications (and worse, my low GPA), but I'll give a shot at a few just so my family and friends won't ask me why I didn't.

[jeeves0923]

I still think I have no chance at the top 30 thanks to my lack of publications (and worse, my low GPA)

 

If you miss the top 30 it will definitely have nothing to do with your lack of publications... I think that was the whole point of slightlyconfused1's post... or maybe you're making a joke here that isn't coming across to me.

[dreck]

Two years ago, I met a guy from a nearby college who had already published in his junior year, and it totally freaked me out. Looking back, I've realized he was co-authoring with a faculty, and the paper was in a very low-ranked journal. But all I saw at the time were the big words in the title, the professional appearance, and all the math. So my frantic attempt to write something good and publishable--which is, it turns out, just about impossible to do on your own as an undergraduate--in order to compete with this guy was really for nothing [EDIT: Well, not for nothing. I did gain a ton of valuable research experience, and may have inspired some research I will do as a graduate student]. I have no idea where he ended up either, but I'm happy where I've ended up.

 

slightlyconfused1, thanks for sharing. I agree completely with the sentiment of your post, and wish someone had told me this at least two years ago.

[Elliephant]

slightlyconfused1, thanks for sharing. I agree completely with the sentiment of your post, and wish someone had told me this at least two years ago.

 

Lucky us 2011 applicants. This actually makes me feel a whole lot better. For those of us coming from low-ranked UG schools, it's hard to tell what student quality is like in the upper crust. We just make wild assumptions, and sometimes they run away with us. So this is a very welcome reality check - thank you!

[moneyandcredit]

If you miss the top 30 it will definitely have nothing to do with your lack of publications... I think that was the whole point of slightlyconfused1's post... or maybe you're making a joke here that isn't coming across to me.

Somewhat joking in that I mentioned my low GPA as an offhand concern, when it's really the weakest part of my profile.

[Econ2011]

I am sure we would all love it if:

1) Grades were less important for those with poor grades

2) GRE scores were meaningless for those with low GRE scores

3) Publications were useless for those without publications

4) Recommendations were not all that important for those who don't have a well-known reco writer

5) Personal statements had no weight in the admission process for those without a good story to tell

 

Unfortunately, it is not one factor that determines the admission of a candidate and all of these variables do play a role. It is always good to have something that can distinguish you from the rest. Given the tough competition, most people tend to have comparable profiles and perhaps, publications/ and or graduate level courses are the ones to separate you from the pile! Having said that, not everyone can do it!

[slightlyconfused1]

Given the tough competition, most people tend to have comparable profiles and perhaps, publications/ and or graduate level courses are the ones to separate you from the pile! Having said that, not everyone can do it!

If we're talking about single-authored publications in respectable journals for applicants coming out of college, "not everyone" should be "literally no one in the world". This is not an exaggeration.

 

I'm sure that publishing in the QJE would indeed make an applicant stand out, but this is so extraordinarily unlikely that it's irrelevant for decision-making purposes. This is in contrast to the other option you mentioned, taking graduate level courses, which is a good strategy for many ambitious applicants.

 

Papers with faculty are somewhat more plausible, but the mere fact of being published doesn't add much to the content of your letters, where a professor can detail your contribution to the project. (For instance, did you contribute substantial new ideas, or just run lots of regressions in Stata?) And even if coauthored publication turns out to be useful, it's not clear how to operationalize this as a distinct admissions strategy. The way to maximize your chances of coauthoring with faculty is to find active professors and work closely with them, which is generally what you should be doing anyway. Agonizing over the very unlikely possibility of publication is just a distraction.

 

Again, as a worried applicant it's easy to let your imagination run wild about the backgrounds of accepted students. Trust me; I've been there. Yes, students accepted to top programs tend to be very accomplished. But they aren't omnipotent -- they can't somehow speed through the legendarily drawn-out refereeing process to obtain good publications before they even apply to grad school. It just isn't possible.

[Pedxs]

I think most MIT student graduate without even having published a paper (although with lots of working paper). I remember asking one student (now a faculty at top 10) why this is so during the flyout. The answer was 1) trying to get the job market paper publish diminish the value of the paper, as it shows that you have benefited from getting the referees' advice and 2) it is generally hard to publish in top journal without faculty co-author, and using co-authored paper for job market is a bad idea.

 

Anyways, my point is that if the department is not pushing hard for its current student to publish, I cannot imagine it demanding incoming student to already have publications.

[Liwanyo]

Papers with faculty are somewhat more plausible, but the mere fact of being published doesn't add much to the content of your letters, where a professor can detail your contribution to the project. (For instance, did you contribute substantial new ideas, or just run lots of regressions in Stata?) And even if coauthored publication turns out to be useful, it's not clear how to operationalize this as a distinct admissions strategy. The way to maximize your chances of coauthoring with faculty is to find active professors and work closely with them, which is generally what you should be doing anyway. Agonizing over the very unlikely possibility of publication is just a distraction.

 

Question re: the bolded. I've never worked as a research assistant, but work in a presumably similar role with PhD economists in the private sector. Do research assistants ever actually contribute new ideas? In the same way that it seems unreasonable for an undergraduate to publish in a top journal, it similarly seems unreasonable for an undergradute to hop onto a serious research project and start influencing the direction of the work. I would never even think to make such comments to my boss. They might appreciate my 'effort' to be kind, but that's about it. That's not to say I'm just a walking computer, since understanding of the issues and how the results of various data analyses fit into the arguments is very important. So while all I basically do is "run lots of regressions in Stata", there may be some real issues that materially affect the project -- be it a problem with the data, some unexpected results and why the data may be yielding them, etc. That's what I see as the research assistant's role... is that not correct?

[slightlyconfused1]

In the same way that it seems unreasonable for an undergraduate to publish in a top journal, it similarly seems unreasonable for an undergradute to hop onto a serious research project and start influencing the direction of the work. I would never even think to make such comments to my boss.

 

I absolutely agree, and that's part of the reason why coauthored publications as an undergraduate aren't terribly relevant. If a student manages to get his name on a published paper, it's overwhelming likely that his contribution consisted of standard RA work, not deep empirical strategies or technical details. This isn't to say that RA work isn't important -- it is, and it's considered a useful formative experience for aspiring economists. I was exaggerating when I described an RA's work as "running regressions in Stata". But the key point is that "publication" itself is >99% determined by the timeline of the professors you happen to be assisting, and

[azure86]

That's not to say I'm just a walking computer, since understanding of the issues and how the results of various data analyses fit into the arguments is very important. So while all I basically do is "run lots of regressions in Stata", there may be some real issues that materially affect the project -- be it a problem with the data, some unexpected results and why the data may be yielding them, etc. That's what I see as the research assistant's role... is that not correct?

 

I second that. Also, I would like to add my opinion in a related topic. I have also been working in the private sector with some great economists. Some students who are fresh out of college are often very eager to jump on research. In my opinion, they tend to think that it only matters if you can do the "thinking" part and consider the tasks such as data, stata regression are all BS.

 

It is true that if you can contribute a lot at the analytical level, you must be good and learning a lot. But it is not true to think that one can't learn anything in the tasks related to data. Seriously, during my 3+ years working, I have learned 1) noone will give you (a non-PhD person or one without great experience) the important stuff (i.e. devising a model, deciding what to do with the research) unless you know the basic stuff including familiarizing yourself with data by either collecting and/or analyzing, graphing, playing around with data. 2) one can actually learn a lot running regressions, messing around with data . Sometimes it's the researchers who see problems in data that "materially affect the project" (quoting Liwanyo above, I can see we work in the same field haha) and bring that up to the economists.

 

Back to the question of this thread: in my humble opinion, it is great to have your name in some publications while an undergraduate. However, if it is not the case, I don't think it will automatically disqualify you from any competitions to the PhD world.

[Econ2011]

Is the discussion about publications in top journals or the relevance of publications in admissions process? I don't think recent undergraduates will be in a position to influence a field of study or for that matter any sub-fields. However, I see other benefits to publications which could be advantageous.

 

But the key point is that "publication" itself is >99% determined by the timeline of the professors you happen to be assisting, and

 

I disagree! A lot of people get their senior thesis published (where >90% of the work is done by the student). There can be some empirical papers done for a class which might end up in journals or as working papers. I don't think the publications have to be theoretical with abstract mathematical concepts. For instance, I had modeled the growth in China (I am interested in growth and development) before and after the reforms and it was not complicated mathematics that was driving my interest but rather the interest on the relative share of capital, labor and productivity in a country like China which has continued to defy the odds (or has it?). I learned different econometric techniques along with the mathematical concepts behind those techniques (eg. cointegration, error correction models, unit roots etc) to model growth functions and I think it is a valuable experience. There are other significant benefits to publications (besides the debate on admissions). Running STATA or SAS and getting the outputs in appropriate format, linking your output to tables, preparing your presentations, writing drafts of manuscripts etc. will save you tons of time at graduate school (I was told by a Harvard graduate who recently joined my firm that had he spent a year working at our firm, he would have completed his dissertation in 1 year).

 

I would not comment much on the impact on admissions (I think several factors play a role) as I am as naive as most others out here. However, I can attest to the benefits of it.

[jeeves0923]

Back to the question of this thread: in my humble opinion, it is great to have your name in some publications while an undergraduate. However, if it is not the case, I don't think it will automatically disqualify you from any competitions to the PhD world.

 

The point isn't whether or not meaningful publications are good (seems that is an obvious question)- it's whether or not it is something relevant to talk about at this stage. The probability of a meaningful publication is exceedingly small if not zero. By using language like "I don't think it will automatically disqualify you" you imply (or at least I infer from your tone) that you are at an extreme disadvantage, though not disqualified. This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. You are at NO DISADVANTAGE. It's like saying I'm at a disadvantage, though not automatically disqualified for joining an art class because I don't have a sculpture on display in the Louvre. It's just not a relevant thing to talk about/ spend costly effort on at this stage.

 

That is if you are a sophomore, junior or senior reading this, you absolutely have a more fruitful strategy than trying to publish something meaningful before you graduate. Connect with faculty, take difficult/grad courses, familiarize yourself with what becoming an academic researcher means.

 

If you've already won the Putnam in four consecutive years and have tons of theory papers ready to publish-congratulations, I doubt whether or not you publish them will have any effect on your impending success in admissions.

[jeeves0923]

I would not comment much on the impact on admissions (I think several factors play a role) as I am as naive as most others out here. However, I can attest to the benefits of it.

 

Again, no one is debating whether or not publications are a good thing. We want to be academics- of course we want people to read our work. Publishing is the way to make that happen.

 

We're talking about admissions. Slightlyconfused & I are at least somewhat clued in if by no other reason than observing those who get into one of the top places, even excluding private information. And it's misleading to think that you need to or ought to try to publish in order to get into graduate school. ALMOST ALL JOB MARKET CANDIDATES ARE NOT PUBLISHED WHEN THEY GO ON THE MARKET. This point seems to be getting lost in every new post that tells people to publish for admissions' purposes...

[corolla09]

I think Jeeves makes a very good point. And I agree with the original post. MOST Candidates are not published and many post on this forum completely exaggerate the need to publish to get in to graduate school. Their goal is to train you to do research. However, there are some candidates that have already submitted papers, usually coauthored.

[azure86]

By using language like "I don't think it will automatically disqualify you" you imply (or at least I infer from your tone) that you are at an extreme disadvantage, though not disqualified. This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. You are at NO DISADVANTAGE. It's like saying I'm at a disadvantage, though not automatically disqualified for joining an art class because I don't have a sculpture on display in the Louvre. It's just not a relevant thing to talk about/ spend costly effort on at this stage.

 

Wrong interpretation of what I said. I never intended to imply so. What I meant is if one doesn't have any publication in relevant fields or any publication in any field, there is no need to worry. If a person indeed has had publications, good for you. That's all.

[asquare]

The point isn't whether or not meaningful publications are good (seems that is an obvious question)- it's whether or not it is something relevant to talk about at this stage. The probability of a meaningful publication is exceedingly small if not zero. By using language like "I don't think it will automatically disqualify you" you imply (or at least I infer from your tone) that you are at an extreme disadvantage, though not disqualified. This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. You are at NO DISADVANTAGE. It's like saying I'm at a disadvantage, though not automatically disqualified for joining an art class because I don't have a sculpture on display in the Louvre. It's just not a relevant thing to talk about/ spend costly effort on at this stage.

 

That is if you are a sophomore, junior or senior reading this, you absolutely have a more fruitful strategy than trying to publish something meaningful before you graduate. Connect with faculty, take difficult/grad courses, familiarize yourself with what becoming an academic researcher means.

 

If you've already won the Putnam in four consecutive years and have tons of theory papers ready to publish-congratulations, I doubt whether or not you publish them will have any effect on your impending success in admissions.

 

Absolutely correct. jeeves0923 and slightlyconfused1 are spot on here. The idea that there are lots of undergraduates out there with top publications competing for spots in graduate school is farcical, and stressing out about or even trying to meet that sort of inaccurate standard definitely does more harm than good. I think the idea that publications are a factor in graduate school admissions is a prime example of something that becomes "common wisdom" by virtue of repetition of inaccurate information, and having people like jeeves0923 and slightlyconfused1 step up and point out that the emperor has no clothes is really important in helping to sort out the bad information from the good.

[slightlyconfused1]

I disagree! A lot of people get their senior thesis published (where >90% of the work is done by the student).

As far as I'm aware, only a few exceptional students manage to publish their senior theses, and even then the publication usually happens several years after graduation. I can think of two current MIT job market candidates who managed to publish their senior theses in top field journals -- needless to say, this is both very impressive and very rare. But neither of these students -- who both, I suspect, will be among the top job market candidates in the world this cycle -- came close to publishing their senior theses before the economics application process. I think they both got their papers accepted in their third year of the Ph.D. program. (And remember, these are exceptional cases. Most people can't even dream of publishing their senior thesis in a respectable outlet, at least without substantial modifications. I certainly can't! :) )

 

Part of what drives confusion on this issue, I think, is ambiguity about the word "publication". Sometimes overenthusiastic undergraduates will brag about "publishing" a paper in some barely-refereed outlet. If you happen to encounter such people, and don't yet know which journals are truly selective, you might get the sense that prospective Ph.D. applicants frequently publish their work. But this isn't really true: if we look at journals that actually mean something, no one manages to publish their senior thesis within even a year of graduation. If you don't believe me, read the CVs of job market candidates at Harvard and MIT and see if anyone had single-authored publications in serious journals before coming to grad school.

 

Several posters have argued that the process of research that leads to a publication is beneficial in its own right. This is, of course, absolutely true! Everyone should try to form a relationship with faculty and be involved in research. But don't worry about not having publications before you apply -- virtually no one else does either.

[Canuckonomist]

Two years ago, I met a guy from a nearby college who had already published in his junior year, and it totally freaked me out. Looking back, I've realized he was co-authoring with a faculty, and the paper was in a very low-ranked journal. But all I saw at the time were the big words in the title, the professional appearance, and all the math. So my frantic attempt to write something good and publishable--which is, it turns out, just about impossible to do on your own as an undergraduate--in order to compete with this guy was really for nothing [EDIT: Well, not for nothing. I did gain a ton of valuable research experience, and may have inspired some research I will do as a graduate student]. I have no idea where he ended up either, but I'm happy where I've ended up.

 

slightlyconfused1, thanks for sharing. I agree completely with the sentiment of your post, and wish someone had told me this at least two years ago.

 

I wonder if the student you met was me. I co-authored a relatively Bellman-intensive, but routine resource oligopoly exercise in the summer after my 2nd year. It was published in a journal that wasn't all that high up -a decent Resource Econ journal, but nothing big. I also had a second paper co-authored with the same guy heading into application season. It didn't crack the top 20 for me, (but I cracked the top 30 at least,) so let that be a lesson to those who think you need one. If someone has something in AER, QJE or Econometrica (or something equally top,) then good on you! But don't be hunting out publications for the CV-padding aspect alone. I've heard that some of the high-ranking institutions won't touch people with low-ranked pubs on their profile -they'd rather have a clean-slate student, then someone who was willing to publish 'lesser-quality' work.

 

Canuck

 

P.S: Jeeves! Sorry to hear about Texas. I know you were cheering them on. But of course, being a Bills fan, I'm sure you're used to crushing defeats in the championship game/series. As snarky as that sounds, I was cheering Texas on myself.

[fp3690]

Couldn't agree more with the post. In Maryland there is only one guy with publications, but he worked for 4 years in an institution. Even seminal papers in a field can take 2-3 years to be published after being completed. Professors vent about how inefficient the process is.

[AREStudentHopeful]

Sometimes overenthusiastic undergraduates will brag about "publishing" a paper in some barely-refereed outlet.

 

I think this is often the case (on these forums and elsewhere). Publishing in an undergraduate journal or a low-ranked field journal (or low professional journal) is a much different thing from publishing in a recognizable journal and I think the difference in value is not always apparent to one who doesn't "know the game" (or at least have an idea). I'm applying again this cycle with a forthcoming publication in a low-ranked field journal but I'm not expecting anything admissions-wise out of it because I know the relatively low value of it. I think this line between journal quality is part of the "common wisdom" misconception on the forum.

[dreck]

I wonder if the student you met was me.

 

I doubt it; the timing isn't right. Unless you spent some time down South as an undergrad.

 

On another topic, most of the posts on publication I remember from the forum have emphasized the fact that publications are not all that important, i.e. they have been in line with what slightlyconfused1 has said. I think it's external myths that are driving perspective students' obsession with publication. But it's nice to have a mass of good information on the topic all in this thread. Maybe the forum is doing better than we think it is.

[slightlyconfused1]

On another topic, most of the posts on publication I remember from the forum have emphasized the fact that publications are not all that important, i.e. they have been in line with what slightlyconfused1 has said. I think it's external myths that are driving perspective students' obsession with publication. But it's nice to have a mass of good information on the topic all in this thread. Maybe the forum is doing better than we think it is.

 

Yeah, I think you're right -- whenever there's a serious discussion on the topic, the consensus seems to be pretty reasonable. The problem is all the offhand mentions -- for instance, where someone says in a profile evaluation "try to take some graduate classes in econ and see if you can get a publication," which gives the highly misleading impression that publishing is both feasible and useful for a prospective applicant.