Rejected: Leading Economists Ponder the Publication Process

13 Pages Posted: 13 Apr 2009

Date Written: 1995

Abstract

This is in response to your letter of April 3rd, 1992, requesting stories about journal rejections - if any. Yours is a worthwhile venture. There seems to be room for improvement in our journals, and perhaps your book will be of help. But I must warn you - and your reader - that the subject is sufficiently important and painful to an author that what one writes cannot be taken too seriously. Like the other authors of your volume I have had papers rejected by journals in several areas, for most of my career, including currently. I had rejections in pure mathematics and in applied mathematics, in economic theory, game theory and in mathematical economics, in financial economics, international trade and development economics, in environmental economics and the economics of networks. Perhaps I have more papers rejected now than ever, but this may be because I am writing more.

Suggested Citation

Chichilnisky, Graciela, Rejected: Leading Economists Ponder the Publication Process (1995). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1377709 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1377709

Graciela Chichilnisky (Contact Author)

Columbia University ( email )

3022 Broadway
New York, NY 10027
United States
212 678 1148 (Phone)
212 678 0405 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://www.chilchilnisky.com

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
206
Abstract Views
989
Rank
267,444
PlumX Metrics