I heard something similar, but it was closer to "better to take a big swing and not be able to prove it than causally identify something less important."
Polisci is generally better, ime, about being careful about "reality" (e.g. actually understanding a case and knowing it deeply). Econ is better, ime, about being technically careful (across most technical domains).
Econ book length appendices in R&Rs...but yes I'll say my experience on both sides of peer review in both disciplines is more work goes into econ peer review. My theory is reputations with comparative powerful editors explains this, followed distantly by diffs in technical proficiency
Fwiw I cannot with those appendices. Have stopped agreeing to referee papers like that. People need to learn how to combine care with explication, and/or editors need to learn how to incentivize that.
But I totally buy the point about powerful editors.
Yes, tbc, the "technical care" I refer to in econ is actually less the 100 page appendices (much of which is just eh), and more care of exposition in technical writing (what are we doing, how are we doing it, what did we find), and care with coding/data practice (this is very heterogeneous tho).
Comments
So weird that we heard similar things... ;)
Being:
*First
*Creative/clever in identification
*Careful
Having results that:
*Are counterintuitive/surprising in deep empirical lits
*Confirm theoretical priors in shallow/tough empirical lits
Complex incentives!
Polisci is generally better, ime, about being careful about "reality" (e.g. actually understanding a case and knowing it deeply). Econ is better, ime, about being technically careful (across most technical domains).
(Speaking only abt the areas I work on).
Fwiw I cannot with those appendices. Have stopped agreeing to referee papers like that. People need to learn how to combine care with explication, and/or editors need to learn how to incentivize that.
But I totally buy the point about powerful editors.