IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp16571.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Writing Matters

Author

Listed:
  • Feld, Jan

    (Victoria University of Wellington)

  • Lines, Corinna

    (Write Limited in Wellington)

  • Ross, Libby

    (Write Limited in Wellington)

Abstract

For papers to have scientific impact, they need to impress our peers in their role as referees, journal editors, and members of conference committees. Does better writing help our papers make it past these gatekeepers? In this study, we estimate the effect of writing quality by comparing how 30 economists judge the quality of papers written by PhD students in economics. Each economist judged five papers in their original version and five different papers that had been language edited. No economist saw both versions of the same paper. Our results show that writing matters. Compared to the original versions, economists judge edited versions as higher quality; they are more likely to accept edited versions for a conference; and they believe that edited versions have a better chance of being accepted at a good journal.

Suggested Citation

  • Feld, Jan & Lines, Corinna & Ross, Libby, 2023. "Writing Matters," IZA Discussion Papers 16571, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp16571
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp16571.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scott Carrell & David Figlio & Lester Lusher, 2024. "Clubs and Networks in Economics Reviewing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(9), pages 2999-3024.
    2. Salant, Walter S, 1969. "Writing and Reading in Economics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 77(4), pages 545-558, Part I, J.
    3. Diego Marino Fages, 2020. "Write better, publish better," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1671-1681, March.
    4. Tan, Hun-Tong & Wang, Elaine Ying & Yoo, G-Song, 2019. "Who likes jargon? The joint effect of jargon type and industry knowledge on investors’ judgments," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 416-437.
    5. McCloskey, Donald N, 1992. "Writing as a Responsibility of Science: A Reply," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 30(4), pages 689-695, October.
    6. Laura Hospido & Carlos Sanz, 2021. "Gender Gaps in the Evaluation of Research: Evidence from Submissions to Economics Conferences," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(3), pages 590-618, June.
    7. Didegah, Fereshteh & Thelwall, Mike, 2013. "Which factors help authors produce the highest impact research? Collaboration, journal and document properties," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 861-873.
    8. Dowling, Michael & Hammami, Helmi & Zreik, Ousayna, 2018. "Easy to read, easy to cite?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 100-103.
    9. J. Scott Armstrong, 1980. "Unintelligible Management Research and Academic Prestige," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 80-86, April.
    10. Laband, David N & Taylor, Christopher N, 1992. "The Impact of Bad Writing in Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 30(4), pages 673-688, October.
    11. Alwyn Young, 2019. "Channeling Fisher: Randomization Tests and the Statistical Insignificance of Seemingly Significant Experimental Results," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 557-598.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ante, Lennart, 2022. "The relationship between readability and scientific impact: Evidence from emerging technology discourses," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    2. Xi Zhao & Li Li & Wei Xiao, 2023. "The diachronic change of research article abstract difficulty across disciplines: a cognitive information-theoretic approach," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Ju Wen & Lei Lei, 2022. "Adjectives and adverbs in life sciences across 50 years: implications for emotions and readability in academic texts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4731-4749, August.
    4. Rose, Michael E. & Opolot, Daniel C. & Georg, Co-Pierre, 2022. "Discussants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    5. Amon, Julian & Hornik, Kurt, 2022. "Is it all bafflegab? – Linguistic and meta characteristics of research articles in prestigious economics journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    6. Andrés Marroquín & Julio H. Cole, 2015. "Economical writing (or, “Think Hemingway”)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 251-259, April.
    7. Dowling, Michael & Hammami, Helmi & Zreik, Ousayna, 2018. "Easy to read, easy to cite?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 100-103.
    8. Leland B. Yeager, 1997. "Austrian Economics, Neoclassicism, and the Market Test," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 153-165, Fall.
    9. Brown, Zachariah C. & Anicich, Eric M. & Galinsky, Adam D., 2020. "Compensatory conspicuous communication: Low status increases jargon use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 274-290.
    10. Andreoni, James & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2021. "Time inconsistent charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    11. Johnsen, Åshild A. & Kvaløy, Ola, 2021. "Conspiracy against the public - An experiment on collusion11“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publ," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    12. Anand Acharya & Lynda Khalaf & Marcel Voia & Myra Yazbeck & David Wensley, 2021. "Severity of Illness and the Duration of Intensive Care," Working Papers 2021-003, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    13. Katharina Werner & Ahmed Skali, 2023. "Violent Conflict and Parochial Trust: Lab-in-the-Field and Survey Evidence," HiCN Working Papers 404, Households in Conflict Network.
    14. Blesse, Sebastian & Diegmann, André, 2022. "The place-based effects of police stations on crime: Evidence from station closures," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    15. Nicolás Ajzenman & Bruno Ferman & Sant’Anna Pedro C., 2023. "Discrimination in the Formation of Academic Networks: A Field Experiment on #EconTwitter," Working Papers 235, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    16. Alejandro Avenburg & John Gerring & Jason Seawright, 2023. "How do social scientists reach causal inferences? A study of reception," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 257-275, February.
    17. Kong, Ling & Wang, Dongbo, 2020. "Comparison of citations and attention of cover and non-cover papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    18. Henning Hermes & Philipp Lergetporer & Frauke Peter & Simon Wiederhold, 2024. "Application Barriers and the Socioeconomic Gap in Child Care Enrollment," Working Papers 2024-022, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    19. Andreas Georgiadis & Liza Benny & Paul Dornan & Jere Behrman, 2021. "Maternal Undernutrition in Adolescence and Child Human Capital Development Over the Life Course: Evidence from an International Cohort Study," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(352), pages 942-968, October.
    20. Agostinelli, Francesco & Avitabile, Ciro & Bobba, Matteo, 2021. "Enhancing Human Capital in Children: A Case Study on Scaling," TSE Working Papers 21-1196, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Oct 2023.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    academic writing; writing quality; economics; randomized experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A10 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp16571. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.