bardharstad.bsky.social
Stanford economist:
Professor of Political Economy; Business & Sustainability.
GSB, Doerr, NBER, CEPR, UiO, TSE, 3ERCs.
Homepage: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/faculty/bard-harstad
Climate & environmental economics; international trade.
177 posts
6,319 followers
4,824 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
Those 184 had, according to the historical sources, misinterpreted the question on the ballot.
comment in response to
post
ConGrat @chknutsen.bsky.social and @sirianned.bsky.social ! Very important research!
comment in response to
post
Yes, but I think length leads to the recommendation to shorten. Omission leads to the recommendation to reject.
Note that there is nothing normative in these observations. (I simply summarized some ways to avoid negative reports on your submission.)
comment in response to
post
Aim high when doing the research!
Be realistic when submitting the paper.
comment in response to
post
There is nothing normative/social-norm related, here. I simply summarized some ways to avoid negative reports on your submission. Editors do of course try to counterbalance. (I may later posts advices for editors/the profession.)
comment in response to
post
Agree @alttag.bsky.social and @profeski.bsky.social : I simply summarized some ways to avoid negative reports on your submission. There is nothing normative/social-norm related, here. Editors do of course try to counterbalance. (I may later posts advices for editors/the profession.)
comment in response to
post
Editors should not be immune to updating priors, because we have a limited amount of time and the optimal allocation of that resource should depend on the likelihood of success.
comment in response to
post
I agree on 1 and 6: These are not advices to editors. (I will make another list on recommendations to editors.)
But 8 and 11 are necessary also for the profession to not waste time on papers that do not fit or are not taking feedback into account.
comment in response to
post
I agree: As an editor, I must find ways to limit the length of the paper. My point was simply that referees are more often negative because improvements are missing (and not because of one generalization too much).
comment in response to
post
I agree Filipe. What I meant is that sometimes referees recommend rejection because the paper is insufficiently developed (but they rarely recommend rejection because of an unnecessary extension).
comment in response to
post
When EU and US are both introducing "reciprocals", with slightly different interpretations, the outcome is that all tariffs continue to rise till the partners no longer trade: