sign in sign up
<<
Home , Emi Nakamura, Judith Chevalier, List of economists, Monika Piazzesi

Published three times annually by the American Economic Association’s Committee on the Status of Women news in the Profession. 2015 ISSUE II

IN THISCSWEP ISSUE An Interview with Serena Ng Feature Section Ethical Issues in Economics Research I Emi Nakamura, Associate Professor of Introduction by Amalia Miller and Business and Economics at Columbia Ragan Petrie ...... 3 University, is the recipient of the 2014 Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Elaine Bennett Research Prize. Estab- Research Standards at the AEA lished in 1998, the Elaine Bennett Re- Journals by Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg ...... 3 search Prize recognizes and honors outstanding research in any field of Ethical Issues in Grant Review economics by a woman not more than by Nancy Lutz...... 5 seven years beyond her PhD. Professor Ethical Issues in Economics Research: Nakamura is recognized for her signifi- The Journal of Political cant contributions to by Harald Uhlig ...... 7 and related fields. Her research, which Do’s and Don’ts of the Publication combines a powerful command of the- Process by . . . . 8 ory with detailed analyses of micro-level data has made important contributions From the CSWEP Chair to the study of rigidity, measures of disaster risks and of long-run risks, Chair’s Letter Can you tell us something about growing by Marjorie B. McElroy ...... 2 exchange rate pass-through, fiscal mul- up in an academic family of ? tipliers, and monetary non-neutrality. My parents love their work and really Tributes & Commendations In 2011, Dr. Nakamura received an wanted to give me a sense of what they NSF Career Award. In 2014, she re- did. That’s easy when your parents are Interview of Emi Nakamura ceived an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship and firemen or policemen, but harder when by Serena Ng ...... 1, 11 was named one of the 25 most influen- your parents spend all their time sit- Remembering tial economists under the age of 40 by by Ivy Broder ...... 10 ting at a desk reading books and run- the International Monetary Fund’s Fi- ning regressions. How do you explain Brag Box ...... 6 nance & Development. She is a research to a kid what it means to do research? fellow of the NBER and serves on the Calls & Announcements So my mom brought me to a number Technical Advisory Board of the Bureau of economics conferences when I was 2015 Bell Award ...... 12 of Labor Statistics. She has published a child. Of course, I didn’t understand papers in most of the main economics 2016 CeMENT Workshop . . . . 12 much, but I did get some sense of what journals and the papers are already well it meant to be an academic . 2016 EEA Sessions ...... 12 cited, in spite of Dr. Nakamura having 2016 MEA Sessions ...... 12 It also led to some funny conversations only received her BA from Princeton when I grew up and met colleagues like Haworth Mentoring Fund . . . .12 University in 2001 and her PhD from Kevin Lang, who I’d first met as a child. in 2007. Because of my parents, I also got to Visit CSWEP.org to view Nakamu- take a bunch of economics classes at the Note: To better reflect CSWEP’s ra’s acceptance talk, Positive Macroeco- University of British Columbia when I fluctuating publication schedule, we nomics, delivered at the CSWEP Busi- was in high school and over the sum- have changed naming conventions. ness Meeting, held during the 2015 In past years “Issue II” was known as mer when I was home from college in AEA Meeting in Boston. the “Spring/Summer” issue. continues on page 11

Free Digital Subscriptions @ CSWEP.org Forward the CSWEP News to colleagues and graduate students. About the Authors Daron Acemoglu, Marjorie B. McElroy From the Chair Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology CSWEP News regularly features a popu- distinguished predecessors—Anna Mi- and Editor-in-Chief of lar section on some aspect of the profes- kusheva (2012), (2010), Amy Econometrica. sional development of economists. No Finkelstein (2008), exception, this issue features the first (2006), (2004), Es- Ivy Broder, Professor of a two-part series co-edited by Ama- ther Duflo (2002), (2000) of Economics at lia Miller and Ragan Petrie on ethical and (1998). Nomina- American University and a former member issues involving publishing and grants. tions for the next Bennett Prize remain of the CSWEP Board. Editors from the AER, Econometrica and open through September 21, 2016 for the JPE weigh in on publishing. Pinelo- nominees with PhDs from 2009 on. pi Goldberg describes the evolution of Finally, Ivy Broder pays tribute to her journal’s policies to promote trans- Barbara Bergmann, giving a brief over- Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg, Professor parency, credibility and replicability and view of her career and influence, includ- of Economics at how these have evolved with changes in ing Marianne Ferber’s observation: “It and technology and data availability (propri- may truly be said that Barbara has made Editor-in-Chief of the American Economic etary, administrative and confidential it her mission to comfort the afflicted Review. data). The JPE’s Harald Uhlig notes that and afflict the comfortable.” while ethical considerations are under Remember “6, 3, 1” for the upcom- Nancy Lutz, Economics Program constant discussion, his journal’s poli- ing January 2016 ASSA/AEA Meet- Director at the cies have rarely changed. In an excep- ing. CSWEP will sponsor six paper ses- National Science tion that proves the rule, he walks us sions, three mentoring breakfasts and Foundation. through the initiation and discontinua- one business meeting, featuring the tion of the JPE’s second-editor approv- presentation of the 2015 Carolyn Shaw al process for revise-and-resubmit deci- Bell Award. Look for details in the next sions and acceptances. Econometrica’s issue of the CSWEP News, including in- Marjorie McElroy, Daron Acemoglu draws on 8 years in formation on how to submit your paper Professor of Economics editoral roles to advise five don’ts (don’t for the 2017 AEA/ASSA Meetings. at Duke University and Chair of the CSWEP get discouraged, over claim, be scared, I’m excited to report that CSWEP’s Board. be unethical or discourage others) and Liaison Network now covers over 200 Amalia Miller, two do’s (do go beyond the formal ethical economics departments and other Associate Professor guidelines and do have fun!). groups, with about 80 to go, see: https:// of Economics at the Turning to ethical issues in grant www.aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/ University of Virginia Liaison_Network.php. Liaisons distrib- and a member of the writing, Nancy Lutz, Program Director CSWEP Board. of Economics at NSF, describes the en- ute information on CSWEP activities tire grant review process and the inter- and opportunities and help to round up play of the responsibilities of both “ad data from departments in CSWEP’s an- hoc” reviewers and NSF-panel review- nual survey. Liaisons do essential work Serena Ng, Professor of ers to avoid institutional as well as per- for CSWEP’s mission—to monitor and Economics at and a mem- sonal conflicts. Noting that much of promote the careers of women econo- ber of the CSWEP her discussion applies to NIH as well mists. Volunteer! Board. as NSF, Lutz encourages the use not I hope this issue inspires you to for- only of NSF’s online resources but also ward CSWEP News to colleagues and Ragan Petrie, invites emails regarding complex, gray students and to consider nominating Associate Professor of situations. an individual for the Bell Award, one Economics at As you likely noted, for our cover sto- for whom mentoring and inspiring and a member of the ry, Serena Ng interviewed Emi Nakamu- others has been woven into the fabric CSWEP Board. ra on the occasion of winning the 2014 of their professional life. See: http:// Elaine Bennett Research Prize. An inspi- www.aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/ ration to young researchers, Nakamura awards/. Harald Uhlig, Professor As always, I’d love to hear from of Economics at the aptly describes her research and her ca- reer, including the process of “asymp- you—thoughts on CSWEP activities, and Head Editor of toting toward tenure.” See David Wein- ideas for the future and items for the the Journal of Political Brag Box—[email protected]. Economy. stein’s introduction and her acceptance at CSWEP.org. Nakamura joins eight 2 CSWEP NEWS Ethical Issues in Economics Research I Amalia Miller & Ragan Petrie

Individual integrity in research is cru- perspectives on the topic of how to en- Journal & NSF cial for the advancement of science and sure integrity in economics research accumulation of knowledge. Monitor- and publication, including views from Submission Policies ing costs to ensure integrity are impos- a program director at a federal grants sibly high for individual consumers agency and from editors of top econom- https://www.aeaweb.org/aer/ of research, so our professional com- ics journals. We asked our contributors authref.php munity relies on individual research- to discuss how their journal or agency ers, journal editorial boards and other perceives its role in ensuring integrity in institutions to adhere to and maintain the research and review processes and Econometrica standards of conduct that help guide what policies it has adopted to address http://bit.ly/1N0KGxf the research process. The econom- ethical concerns. Examples of such poli- ics profession takes ethics in research cies include data disclosure and sharing seriously as lapses can hurt individu- requirements, rules to avoid, mitigate al researchers and the profession as a or disclose potential conflicts of inter- Journal of whole and hinder scientific progress. est, double-blind versus single-blind re- http://bit.ly/1TpuzYT Although many professional norms are views, and Institutional Review Board informal and left unstated, journals and (IRB) approval for human subjects re- granting agencies have also responded search. Each contributor offers a unique to ethical concerns by adopting policies and informative perspective on the top- National Science Foundation that require disclosure of conflicts of in- ic and helpful advice for those engaged http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/ terest, data sharing after publication to in the research process. In addition to policy/ enable replication, and documentation the articles in this issue, readers may of protection of human subjects. also be interested in the piece by Joshua This issue of the CSWEP News ad- Margolis, “Preparing for Ethical Chal- dresses “Ethical Issues in Econom- lenges,” published in the Winter 2003 ics Research” with contributed articles CSWEP Newsletter. from individuals representing different

Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Research Standards at the AEA Journals

In recent years, the American Economic Association has review process, but the names of the authors are disclosed sought to improve the review processes at all of its journals: to referees when the paper is sent for review. The double- the American Economic Review (AER), the four American Eco- blind policy aimed to address biases in the refereeing pro- nomic Journals, the Journal of Economic Perspectives and the cess that earlier studies of journals’ processes and decisions Journal of Economic Literature. To this end, it has both mod- had shown to exist. The discontinuation of the double-blind ified existing policies and adopted new ones. The general policy was not based on the belief that such biases no longer principles governing these changes are that: (a) the review exist (of course one wishes that this is the case), but rather on process should avoid conflicts of interest; (b) the research re- the realization that in the age of search engines, double-blind sults should be credible and—to the extent possible—replica- refereeing is ineffective. In addition, the disclosure policies ble; and (c) the research that has led to the published results that were introduced shortly thereafter (as discussed below) should have been conducted in a manner consistent with ba- were in obvious conflict with the double-blind policy given sic ethical principles. that the authors’ eponymous disclosure statements are sent One of the existing policies that was modified was the to the referees along with the paper. “double-blind” refereeing process. Starting in 2011, the AER The disclosure policy at the AEA journals requires au- transitioned from a “double-blind” to a “single-blind” poli- thors to disclose any positions (current or previous), financial cy; that is, the referees remain anonymous throughout the continues on page 4 2015 ISSUE II 3 Goldberg continued from page 3 holdings or other issues that may lead to a conflict of inter- at the AER. Authors are required to submit all data and pro- est for the specific research reported in the paper. All authors grams to the journal when their paper is accepted for pub- are required to submit disclosure statements at the time of lication. We then have an editorial assistant go through the the submission, and these statements are sent to the refer- files and replicate all results in order to ensure that the jour- ees (hence, the conflict with the double-blind policy). If an nal has everything needed for future replications. The data author does not submit a disclosure statement, the paper posting and replication policy was implemented in response is not checked in at the journal. The disclosure policy was to occasional complaints that published results could not be implemented in response to increased demand, especially replicated as well as the desire to make practices in econom- from outside the field of economics, for more transparency ics similar to those in the life and physical sciences. While regarding authors’ backgrounds and potential research moti- the implementation of the policy has been running smoothly vations. The disclosure requirements as implemented at the so far, it has a serious limitation that is becoming more and AEA journals aim to accomplish exactly this, namely provide more severe over time: it has no bite in those cases where more transparency. But the journals have made clear that the the data cannot be made publicly available, either because it acceptance criteria do not include the absence of a potential is privately owned (by a company) or because it is restricted conflict of interest. Decisions are based (as they have always access. The increasing use of administrative data in recent been) on whether the question the paper addresses is inter- years has made this issue more severe. In the 2014 Editor’s esting and important and the research results are credible. Report of the AER, I reported that approximately 46% of all If authors can convincingly demonstrate a certain point, we papers published in 2013 that used data had some type of ex- will publish the paper without regard to what motivated the emption, so replication was not possible based on the data research. Along the same lines, our instructions to the ref- provided by the authors. The increasing role of confidential erees explicitly state that the evaluation of the paper and rec- data clearly interferes with the replicability of results and has ommendation regarding publication should be based on the been of concern to all journals’ editors. However, some of the credibility and robustness of the results, and not on the po- most exciting, novel and thought-provoking research is based tential motives of the authors. Of course, the existence of po- on data sets that are not publicly available, and driving such tential conflicts of interest calls for extra caution and induc- research out of the journals because the results are not read- es referees and readers more generally to be vigilant. In my ily replicable would be tantamount to losing out on some of personal experience at the AER, I have not encountered any the most interesting and promising contemporary research. problems related to conflicts of interest since the disclosure Therefore, the consensus view has been that it is prudent policy’s inception in 2012. to continue the current practice of allowing for exemptions The rules governing the review process at the AER (as well from the data-posting policy in cases where the data cannot as the other AEA journals) also seek to avoid potential con- be made publicly available while encouraging authors to pro- flicts of interest among editors and referees in the review of vide all information needed for other researchers to get ac- papers. As outlined in the annual Editor’s Report, coeditors cess to the same data. at the AER do not handle the papers of their colleagues, ad- I will briefly comment on two additional requirements visors, students, and current or recent coauthors. At times, that the AEA has introduced in recent years. The first re- there is a tension between avoiding potential conflicts of in- quirement is that authors state whether they have obtained terest and the efficiency and quality of the refereeing process. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for their research For example, the most qualified coeditor and referees for a (in those cases where IRB approval is called for). The reason paper may all be related to an author. In such cases, it is a for this requirement is to ensure that research, especially in challenge for the journals’ editors to strike a balance between and on developing countries, is conducted in accordance with maintaining the quality of the review process while minimiz- the basic ethical principles all major educational institutions ing the effect of potential conflicts of interest. A common ap- in the U.S. adhere to. The AEA stopped short of mandating proach in these instances is to involve more than one coedi- IRB approval for paper submission to its journals because tor in the review of the paper. many authors, especially in foreign countries, are affiliated Another recent change in journal practices regards the im- with institutions that do not have IRBs and it did not seem plementation of the data posting and replication policy. This fair to punish them for their institutions’ policies. The hope policy had been nominally in effect at the AER for a very long was that the AEA policy of requesting information on IRB time. But in reality it was not enforced. Improvements in data status would serve as an impetus for such institutions to es- storage and processing technologies have made it possible for tablish IRBs. authors to submit their data and programs at the time of ac- Finally, the AEA established a registry for Randomized ceptance and for journals to store this information and make Controlled Trials (RCTs). This registry is in operation, but it available on the journals’ web pages. Starting in 2004, the importantly, registering RCTs with it is not a requirement for data posting and replication policy has been strictly enforced submitting and publishing papers in the AEA journals. The continues on page 5

4 CSWEP NEWS that they have disclosed all conflicts. We use that information to make sure that Ethical Issues in Grant Review Nancy Lutz reviewers do not have conflicts with the proposals they review. In-house training and resources: NSF Granting agencies like the National Sci- about conflicts of interest in the admin- staff are trained in handling conflict of ence Foundation (NSF) and the Nation- istration of federal funds. We divide po- interest issues; this includes both train- al Institutes of Health (NIH) rely on the tential conflicts of interest into two cat- ing for new NSF program directors and research community’s contributions to egories: (a) conflicts about institutions managers and required annual training the grant review process. Those con- and employers, and (b) conflicts about for current staff. Each work unit at NSF tributions are absolutely essential, but personal connections. has an identified “conflicts of interest” they also raise the specter of possible Institutional conflicts: Proposals officer who is available to consult with ethical conflicts. NSF takes this issue come to us from institutions (e.g., uni- program directors, and we have three in- seriously; the integrity of the merit re- versities), and those institutions have an house attorneys in our General Coun- view process rests on our ability not just obvious financial interest in obtaining sel’s office who are also on-call to an- to avoid conflicts but also to keep the grants. NSF prohibits reviewers from swer questions and give us legal rulings trust of the research community. In oth- reviewing proposals that would benefit as required. In addition, our Inspector er words, both actual conflicts and the a current employer. Therefore, Profes- General’s office takes reports from the appearance of conflicts matter. My goal sor Smith who works at the Universi- community about potential violations of here is to give an overview of how NSF ty of North Illinois (UNI) cannot review our conflicts of interest policies. approaches conflict of interest issues in any proposal that includes funds go- Researchers are required to disclose the grant review process. Two necessary ing to UNI; this is also true if Profes- information about potential conflicts disclaimers: I am not speaking official- sor Smith has been paid by UNI in the of interest as part of the proposal. NSF ly on behalf of NSF, and I will be us- last 12 months or is applying for a job requires a “biographical sketch” from ing non-legal language in the interest at UNI. each senior researcher on the proposal, of clarity. Conflicts about personal connections: and researchers have to list collabora- One obvious approach would be dou- NSF prohibits reviewers from review- tor, advisor/advisee and co-editor rela- ble-blind reviewing, in which reviewers ing proposals where they have certain tionships. NSF staff check these docu- do not know the identity of the principal personal connections with the principal ments after proposal submission, and if investigators. Double-blind reviewing is investigator or other people who would the information is not there we require more difficult in practice than in theo- be funded by the grant. This includes, that the proposal be revised before re- ry because reviewers can sometimes in- for obvious reasons, parents, children, view can start. fer the principal investigator’s identity spouses/partners, and other household NSF uses two different kinds of re- from other information in the propos- and family members. It includes dis- viewers: “panelists” review a group of al (for example, from the references). sertation and postdoc advisors and ad- proposals and discuss them at a panel Even if this issue could be avoided, it is visees; in other words, I have a life-long continues on page 6 hard to imagine how NSF could imple- conflict with my advisor and with my ment double-blind reviewing without a own dissertation students. It also in- significant change in the merit review cludes all collaborators within the last Goldberg continued from page 4 standards. NSF’s official Merit Review 48 months (and a collaboration contin- registry was established in response to Guidelines require that reviewers evalu- ues until publication by our rules). Fi- strong interest from those who are in- ate (among other things) the qualifica- nally, it includes all co-editors for jour- volved in RCTs and would like to have a tions of the “individual, team, or orga- nals or conference proceedings in the permanent record of not only those tri- nization” to carry out the research. (See last 24 months. als that produced clear results (and were NSF’s Grant Proposal Guide (GPG), Obviously, these policies are only as published) but also of those cases where Chapter III.A for the full and legal state- good as our practices for identifying po- the results were weak or inconclusive. ment of the Merit Review Guidelines. tential conflicts of interest and keeping Overall, the policies at the AEA jour- The GPG is available at http://nsf.gov.) conflicted reviewers out of the process. nals have evolved in order to ensure that It is hard to see how reviewers can eval- Those practices include: (a) extensive the published research is transparent, uate a researcher’s qualifications in a and repeated training for NSF program credible and (to the extent possible) rep- serious way without knowing the re- directors, and in-house legal counsel licable and that it adheres to the same searcher’s identity. who specialize in conflict of interest is- ethical standards endorsed by higher Instead of a double-blind process, sues; (b) requiring information from all education institutions in the U.S. New NSF relies on a set of policies and prac- principal investigators about conflicts technologies and data regularly pose tices that focus on avoiding conflicts. of interest; and (c) requiring legal state- new challenges, so it is likely that these Those policies are based on federal law ments from all reviewers and panelists policies will continue to evolve. 2015 ISSUE II 5 Lutz continued from page 5 that review larger numbers of proposals is, “If the reviewer thinks there is a con- (such as the Economics Program) may flict, there is a conflict.” In other words, meeting, and “ad-hoc reviewers” are include panelists who have conflicts we do not want anyone to be review- asked to review individual proposals. with some of the proposals reviewed at ing in circumstances that make them Both kinds of reviewers use our Fast- the meeting. The exact decisions here uncomfortable. Lane website to look at proposals and are not made by NSF program directors So what advice do I have for schol- submit reviews. FastLane requires that but by our attorneys, who are consult- ars who are thinking about submitting reviewers read information about NSF ed about the “conflict rules” for all NSF or reviewing proposals? Agency staff- conflict of interest rules and certify that competitions. Again, all panelist con- ers take conflict of interest issues very they have no conflicts. The actual form flicts are noted in the database and in seriously indeed because we know that for submitting reviews includes space the official records of the meeting. the integrity of the process depends on for identifying other possible conflicts These formal rules and policies can avoiding both actual and perceived con- of interest. In addition to this, panelists only cover the kinds of relationships flicts. Sometimes when we ask for re- get briefed at the beginning of any NSF that can be described in writing. Some quired information it may seem like panel meeting about conflicts of inter- economists are concerned about more unnecessary red tape, but we need est and sign statements that they under- subtle kinds of conflicts: “Professor X that information to conduct reviews in stand the rules and have disclosed all is unfairly biased against my kind of an ethical way. Don’t hesitate to let us relevant conflicts. research,” or “Professor G dated my know about other potential conflicts. NSF does not use conflicted ad-hoc daughter in grad school.” We have for- Sometimes telling us about a conflict reviewers. Of course, mistakes do hap- mal and more informal mechanisms to may involve private information you pen and we do sometimes request a re- help us with these kinds of conflicts as are reluctant to share (about job search- view from someone who is conflicted. well. NSF allows investigators to pro- es or personal relationships), but we Every program director sooner or later vide lists of suggested proposal review- keep those confidences. When in doubt, receives a review where the last section ers AND lists of people who should not please do email your program director says, “I am now collaborating with this review the proposal. Program directors with your concerns; it helps us do our person, but my review was not affected are always willing to answer questions jobs in the best possible way. by the relationship.” We do not delete from reviewers about possible conflicts the review; it’s retained in our database of interest. The general rule we use here system. However, we “mark” the review as conflicted; it is not available to pan- elists and it’s not used in the decision process. NSF program directors justify all funding decisions in written mem- Brag Box os to their supervisors (Division Direc- tors); those memos include a full state- “We need every day to herald some woman’s achievements . . . go ahead and boast!” ment about conflicts of interest in the —Carolyn Shaw Bell review and are double checked against Martha Bailey, Associate Professor of Economics of Economics at and current the database. at the University of Michigan, was named First President of SOLE, in 2017–18. What about conflicted panelists? Vice-President of the Midwest Economics For the first time, the top economists in both This is a little more complicated be- Association. U.S. antitrust enforcement agencies are women. cause NSF panels vary enormously in Janet Currie, Professor of Economics at Princeton Nancy L. Rose, Charles P. Kindleberger Professor composition and workload. One panel University, was named President-Elect of the of at MIT and former CSWEP may review 200 proposals at a panel Eastern Economics Association. Board Member, was appointed the Deputy meeting, and another panel may review Li Feng of Texas State University, Jessica Assistant Attorney General for Economic Analysis in the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust only 20 or 30; this varies across NSF Hennessey of Furman University, Adrienne Lucas of the University of Delaware, Raechelle Division in September 2014. Francine Lafontaine, based on the nature of the competition. the William Davidson Professor of Business The iron-clad rule is that no panelist Mascarenhas of Willamette University, and Evelina Mengova of Governors State University Economics and Public Policy and Professor of evaluates a proposal on which she has a were awarded tenure and promoted to associate Economics at the University of Michigan, joined conflict. She may under certain circum- professor. the Federal Trade Commission as its Director of the Bureau of Economics in November 2014. stances be part of a panel meeting that Julie Hotchkiss, Bank of Atlanta, includes the proposal, but she leaves was named Vice President of the Southern We want to hear from you! the room for discussion of the propos- Economic Association. Send announcements of honors, awards, grants received, promotions, tenure decisions and new al and does not see the reviews or the Marjorie B. McElroy, Professor of Economics at appointments to [email protected]. It will identity of reviewers (access is blocked Duke University and CSWEP Chair, was elected be our pleasure to share your good news with the Vice President of the Society of Labor Economists in our database). In general, panels that CSWEP Community. review a small number of proposals will (SOLE). She will succeed Janet Currie, Professor include no conflicted panelists. Panels 6 CSWEP NEWS Ethical Issues in Economics Research: Harald Uhlig The Journal of Political Economy

Economics is a science. As a science, replicability of findings policy. However, there is wide agreement that this is a wise and peer review are crucial. Necessarily, this involves judg- policy and that we should stick with it. ment by fellow scientists in their role as authors and referees I do not have data to assess the effect of the policy on sub- as well as editors. Science is a human enterprise. Whenever missions or research. Given that the policy is known and used humans are involved, conflicts of interests and the vagaries of by a number of the leading journals, researchers presum- subjective assessments come into play. It would be foolish to ably now adjust their procedures accordingly early on when believe otherwise. Nonetheless, authors, referees and editors pursuing a project, seeking to appropriately document their can strive for the ideal and rigor of an objective and detached data and the steps taken. We do know that the data archives evaluation of results and the objective and detached pursuit of are accessed. Furthermore, we regularly get questions about scientific truth. The colleagues that we most respect and the the policy (1–2 a month, on average). Overall, we feel that re- journals that we hold in the highest esteem tend to rank high search has become more replicable as a result, and that is in coming close to reaching that ideal. And, by implication, surely a good thing. should authors, referees, editors or a journal as a whole cease In principle, referees are furthermore supposed to check to pursue this ideal with the appropriate vigor, they may soon the submitted material as to whether the results can be rep- find that their reputation will be damaged. As a community licated. In principle, it might be desirable to hire graduate of scientists, we then turn to other authors or journals. The students to check into the replicability in detail. As a matter marketplace for scientific ideas, the competition for reputa- of practice, referees tend to check key findings and often ask tion and the competition between outlets to publish reputa- authors to provide additional details and insights in the vari- ble scientific findings creates the necessary peer pressure to ous stages of the review process. However, they tend to per- advance our science closer to the ideal of objectivity and cre- haps not check all the details, trusting instead in the interest ates the ongoing cleansing within our profession, even if in- of the authors to uphold their reputations. And as a matter dividual authors or journals fail to abide by these standards. of practice, we have found hiring students to replicate the re- The system is not perfect. However, it is hard and perhaps sults is prohibitive in a number of ways: it is costly, it delays impossible to think of a better one. publication and it may be seen as a burden by authors. We The Journal of Political Economy (JPE) is one of the premier trust that key results will be investigated by others, and con- journals in economics. It has a long and proud tradition. It tested, should they be found faulty. Papers that are published has a reputation for publishing reputable scientific findings in the JPE tend to draw a lot of attention, so we hope that the of the highest quality and impact. Its editors seek to uphold detailed refereeing process, the online material and the peer that reputation for the future. Therefore, they are constant- pressure generated by potential replicators is sufficient to as- ly vigilant that scientific standards and ground rules are up- sure reputability of the published results and sufficient care held. This may not always work perfectly. Each time it does by authors in making sure their results are correct and rep- not, the journal may be damaged. This we seek to avoid. Up- licable. Generally, referees are remarkably conscientious of holding these scientific standards may mean different things getting “under the hood’’ and into the details of a submission in different circumstances, but some general principles can and often provide the journal with remarkable effort and the be spelled out. author with considerable expertise and guidance on check- Electronic means have made it far easier to store material ing on the results and clarifying the key findings. Thus, while online in association with a published paper and to encourage more could be done in principle, it is already remarkable how replication of results with programs and datasets created by much gets done in practice. It would be hard to impose even the authors or newly created by those who wish to check the more of a burden on all sides. This is no invitation to com- published results. The American Economic Review (AER) was placency, obviously, and we implicitly monitor challenges as perhaps the first major journal in economics to spell out a de- they arise and keep thinking about potential adjustments for tailed policy here. We adopted the policy shortly after the AER the future. did, in response to evolving norms in economics and evolving We currently do not require a disclosure statement about technological possibilities. In order to keep the norm consis- potential conflicts of interest. There may have been a reason tent, we used their policy verbatim. The policy was adopted for the AER or other journals to pursue this. So far, I am not before my time as lead editor, so I do not know the specific aware of particular instances or reasons to do so at the JPE. circumstances. I do not recall that there was a specific case Potential conflicts may arise, of course, if particular scientific or issue that led us to react to that situation by adopting that findings by an author might jibe with his or her commercial

continues on page 9 2015 ISSUE II 7 Do’s and Don’ts of the Publication Process Daron Acemoglu

For many young economists, the pro- and keep in mind that those mentoring journals, and sometimes it may be best cess of publication is a mysterious one. you and ultimately evaluating you prob- to be realistic in the choice of venue. But What are the appropriate outlets? What ably also understand the random nature generally, if you are going to err, I would determines the likelihood of success? of this entire process. recommend erring on the side of aim- What are the things to avoid? There Do not overclaim. The pressure of ing a little too high rather than aiming are no straightforward answers to these getting published, and the discourage- too low. Aiming too high does create a questions. That being said, my own ex- ment that will inevitably come at vari- negative impact on the profession be- perience—first as a young and inexpe- ous stages, should not obscure what is cause it increases the total amount of rienced author, then as a somewhat old- most important: the quality of the re- refereeing and editorial resources that er but still inexperienced author, then search. The best strategy is to let the will be used up as a paper makes the as an advisor to over 50 PhD students, quality of your research speak for itself. rounds across several journals. But dis- and then over the last eight years as co- The high-stakes publication game does couraging individual researchers—es- editor and editor of Econometrica—has create incentives to overclaim, either pecially young researchers—from being taught me a number of lessons on the in the form of not giving enough cred- ambitious with their research would be do’s and don’ts of the publication pro- it to prior literature or exaggerating the a greater cost. It’s an unfortunate side cess that I would like to share. originality or robustness of results. We of our profession that almost everybody Don’t get discouraged. It’s easy to get are probably all guilty of this to some gets a taste of rejections (I count myself discouraged. I experienced firsthand, degree. But stepping back, my sense is lucky when one out of every three sub- both as a graduate student at the Lon- that not overclaiming is a winning strat- missions gets ultimately accepted). And don School of Economics and as a ju- egy. For example, one might be tempted rejection is never pleasant. But it is also nior faculty at MIT, how one may get not to give enough credit to prior or con- important to take risks both in terms of frustrated by an early stream of rejec- temporaneous related work. But besides trying new things and trying to get them tions from top journals. It took me a being unethical, it is also a strategy that published in the best possible journals. while to ultimately realize that the fault often backfires. Often, recognizing the Ultimately, it would be our profes- was partly (largely?) mine: I had to learn contributions of others increases the sion that loses if its young researchers to express my ideas better and improve of one’s own paper. The same is shy away from ambitious research and the craftsmanship of my work. Those true for robustness of results. “Stress from attempting to publish their work lessons are even more relevant today: testing” of empirical and theoretical re- in the most visible outlets. In many dis- With ever-increasing competition from sults is an integral part of the research ciplines of science, new ideas and ap- many more researchers from around process. But it would be unreasonable proaches often come from younger the world, it is becoming harder and to expect that, in the complex world of scholars, and economics is no excep- harder for young scholars to publish in , a result can be robust to tion. It is then critical for us to engage the premier journals of our profession. all variations. Openly highlighting un- and stimulate the next generation, and Ultimately, it is the scientific content of der what conditions a theoretical result for young scholars to strive to make an a paper that matters most. But crafts- might be overturned or when an empiri- impact and aim high in the process. manship and clarity are absolutely nec- cal result ceases to hold will not only be Do follow the ethical guidelines. In an essary not just for getting published but more honest but also ultimately more age when the economics profession is also for the paper to communicate its revealing for readers. under a greater spotlight than before, content and ultimately be impactful. Don’t be scared. The decision of where several organizations, including the All the same, there is also no denying to submit one’s work is a difficult one. American Economic Association, the that the publication process has a signifi- Some papers, by their nature, will be ap- Econometric Society and the Nation- cant random component. As an editor, propriate for more specialized outlets. al Bureau of Economic Research, have you cannot survive if you do not accept (A useful question is: Is this paper of in- strengthened their ethical guidelines. that you will make both type I and type terest to specialists working on related These guidelines include: explicit dis- II errors. But this makes it no less frus- problems or for a broader audience? If closures on conflict of interest, which trating for authors, especially young au- it’s the former, the paper is unlikely to have been important in other disci- thors, suffering as a result of the type I be appropriate for a top general interest plines but less so in the social scienc- errors. The understanding that random- journal.) The feedback from colleagues es until now; strict adherence to estab- ness is an integral part of the publication and experts will also give you an indica- lished protocols of human subjects, for process should help you to persevere, tion of whether a paper has a shot at top continues on page 9 8 CSWEP NEWS Acemoglu continued from page 8 example as set out by an Institutional critics have been on us. But often it is to encounter, ours is an open, exciting Review Board (IRB); and a general ef- both more rewarding personally and so- and ultimately rewarding profession. fort on research integrity and ethical be- cially for us to try to see the positive in It allows us to pursue interesting and havior. By and large these are minimal others’ contributions. As an editor, it is important questions of social science, requirements, and following these ethi- both refreshing and gratifying to see ref- sometimes with the promise of giving cal guidelines is in the interest of both erees trying to find the positive contri- us clues about how to improve the lives researchers and the profession at large. bution in the paper rather than work- of millions of people around the world. In many cases, we can and should do ing hard to shoot it down. Moreover, It encourages cooperation and team- better than these minimal guidelines. encouraging others to do new things work, enabling us to work with other For instance, our guidelines now re- and original research and take risks is first-rate minds. quire posting of data and programs for also essential for the advancement of At the center of all this is our quest published papers. But in many cases, the profession. for knowledge and original scientific re- researchers should do more than the The value of cooperative behavior of search, which is what the entire profes- minimum and strive to make their pro- course extends well beyond the refer- sion of economics and the publication grams easy for other to understand and eeing process. Collaborating with and process are built on. Many scholars are use. As another example, some institu- helping others is ultimately its own re- drawn to economics because they have tions provide loopholes for researchers ward, but with the increasingly collab- an enthusiasm for the questions and to design experiments without IRB ap- orative nature of economics research, as the methods of our discipline, and it proval, but my view is that it is unac- witnessed, for instance, by the growth of is most important for all of us as indi- ceptable for economists not to take ev- co-authored papers, such cooperation is viduals and collectively as a profession ery precaution against harming human becoming even more important. Work- to keep this enthusiasm alive because subjects or to depart from other aspects ing with, encouraging and seeing the the vibrancy of our profession and our of ethical behaviors when it comes to positive in the work of others will not hope of impacting the world around us experimental work. only help your colleagues but will also depend on it. And good, impactful re- Don’t discourage others. All of us play enable you to improve your own ideas search is more likely to result when we an important role in the profession as and work. are all enjoying the process of generat- reviewers of others’ work. It is tempting Do have fun. Despite all the difficul- ing ideas, developing them and crafting to be as tough on others as our toughest ties that young researchers are likely papers.

Uhlig continued from page 7 interests due to, say, consulting or other efforts. However, so on where to pay most attention when evaluating the proposed far such cases seem to be sufficiently rare as to prevent us findings, given the existing reputation and known expertise from an overall policy of imposing detailed declarations by of the authors. Obviously, the identity of the referees needs authors. Our foremost interest as a journal is to publish key to be protected and kept unknown to the author, in order to scientific breakthroughs; there is a cost in imposing too much receive honest and clear assessments. We are very consci- bureaucracy on authors to do so. As editors, we keep these entious of this issue. The rare and unfortunate instances in matters in mind on a case-by-case basis, and we might adopt which the identity was not fully protected have cost our rep- a change in policy in the future if the current one disappoints. utation dearly. With regard to the issue of single-blind refereeing ver- For some time, the JPE required second-editor approval sus double-blind refereeing, we rely on the good conscience on revise-and-resubmit and accept decisions. I suspect that of reviewers to disclose potential conflicts and biases, which might have helped in some cases to balance overly favorable they frequently do. The editors decide on a case-by-case ba- opinions, but it would have had no effect in cases where re- sis whether and how to use reports from self-reported po- viewers and/or editors held a negative bias. The second-editor tentially biased reviewers. While there has been a move in approval process was discontinued because it was time con- hard sciences to return to double-blind review, it appears to suming, leading to costly delays in publication. us to be difficult (if not impossible) to ensure the integrity of All these policies are under constant discussion. We may a double-blind process, especially in the age of the Internet. not change policies lightly, and we may change them rarely. When a paper is submitted to the JPE, it frequently has been That does not mean that we are complacent about their effects circulated and been presented at various venues and may be or what needs to be done. We shall and we will act swiftly if quite well known already. Even if not, it often is easy to find the need for a policy change arises. out about a paper and authors by using appropriate Internet Acknowledgement: This article was written with consider- searches. Finally, there also is a benefit in knowing the iden- able help and input by Connie Fritsche, managing editor at tity of the authors: it provides the referee with some guidance the JPE. 2015 ISSUE II 9 Remembering Ivy Broder Barbara Bergmann

and “Sex Roles in Economic Life” and by Paulette Olson, it was described as she created the field in gender econom- “. . . one of the first books of its kind, ex- ics in the doctoral program. amining the evolution of women’s dual Barbara participated in the caucus of careers as homemakers and labor force women economists at the 1971 Ameri- participants . . . [and it] contains Berg- can Economic Association (AEA) Meet- mann’s policy recommendations for ing that drafted the resolutions pre- achieving an equitable future such as sented at the AEA Business Meeting to pay equity, affirmative action and child- establish CSWEP. She later served on care assistance.” the CSWEP Board from 1983–86 and In the 1980s, Barbara turned her at- was chair from 1983–85. Barbara also tention to the economics of family is- served as president of the Internation- sues, especially child care and child al Association for , support. She strongly and passionately vice-president of the AEA, president of advocated for subsidized child care as the American Association of Universi- a means to reduce poverty among sin- ty Professors, president of the Eastern gle mothers and lauded many aspects Barbara Rose Berman Bergman—econ- Economics Association and president of of the French child care system. She omist, mentor and teacher, music lov- the Society for the Advancement of So- wrote on affirmative action and compa- er, advocate for social justice, activist as cio-Economics, among others. Her stat- rable worth in both academic journals well as mother and wife—died in April ure in the profession was also reflected and media publications. Barbara was 2015. She was born in the Bronx in 1927 in biographies and tributes, including a also well known for her contribution to to immigrants from Eastern Europe. In 1998 special issue of Feminist Economics debates through her 1965, she married Fred H. Bergmann, honoring her and her work. columns in the New York Times and ar- National Institutes of Health micro- In 2004, Barbara received the Caro- ticles in Academe, Challenge and Times biologist, who died in 2011. They had lyn Shaw Bell Award for her pioneer- Literary Supplement. two children, Sarah and David. Barbara ing work on the economic emergence of Although Barbara is best known for would proudly talk of Fred’s equal part- women in the and in rec- her work on gender-related issues, her nership in their household as being far ognition as a “renowned scholar whose publications on agent-based model- ahead of its time. research combined theory, quantitative ing and methodology in the 1970s and Barbara had an undergraduate modeling, and policy analysis on issues 1980s were significant as well, culmi- math major at Cornell University and such as unemployment, urban devel- nating in a 1990 article in the Journal a PhD from Harvard University. Be- opment, discrimination, poverty and of Economic Perspectives. In almost any tween studying for those degrees, she women’s status.” conversation with Barbara up to the worked at the New York office of the One of Barbara’s early major contri- time of her death, she would lament on Bureau of Labor Statistics. She then butions was on the “crowding” hypoth- the methodological approach of most continued government service as a se- esis, which argues that gender discrim- economists and urge them to spend nior staff economist at President Ken- ination leads to segmentation of labor more time on direct behavioral obser- nedy’s Council of Economic Advisors, markets between men and women. vations rather than isolated theorizing. taught for two years at Brandeis Uni- Since women were not allowed to com- It is most fitting to end this tribute versity, and joined the Brookings Insti- pete for certain “male” jobs, women’s with a quote from Barbara’s friend, the tution as senior economist from 1963– labor markets became relatively more late Marianne Ferber (whose remem- 65. Her academic career continued at crowded, leading to lower for brance was published in the Winter the University of Maryland where she women compared to men. She was also 2014 CSWEP News), “There are few taught from 1965–88, and at the Amer- the first to critically analyze the occu- who have earned as much warm grati- ican University (AU) where she taught pation of “housewife,” arguing that the tude for generous help to her colleagues, from 1988–97 before retiring as Dis- long tenure of such a job is associated or have gained as much genuine admi- tinguished Professor Emerita. At AU, with high physical and financial risks. ration for their dedication as Barbara, of she developed new economics cours- But it is The Economic Emergence of Wom- whom it may truly be said that she has es at both graduate and undergraduate en (1986, 2006) that is considered to be made it her mission to comfort the af- levels called “Women in the Economy” her most significant work. In a review flicted and afflict the comfortable.” continues on page 11 10 CSWEP NEWS Nakamura continued from page 1 Vancouver, including a number of class- (now my colleague at Columbia) was a until 9:00PM anymore to finish a paper! es on economic measurement from Er- great senior thesis advisor. Having Mike Jon tells me I am good at outsourcing. win Diewert. Measurement is a really as an advisor was a tremendous intel- This helps me save time so that I can fo- understudied topic in economics today lectual experience that really made me cus on my family and my work. and you don’t learn much about it even curious about macroeconomics—but I What would you say is the biggest chal- in grad school, so that was a unique op- still wasn’t sure of my field when I went lenge in your career so far? portunity. I have since written several to Harvard. The last part of grad school and the first papers on measurement issues where I always knew, however, that I want- few years of being an assistant professor this experience was very useful. ed to work with data—this goes all the are very stressful. Journal decision lags way back to my parents, who imprinted You left home and Canada to attend col- are long, so it matters a lot what hap- on me a deep sense of the importance of lege in the U.S. at a relatively young age. pens with every paper. Of course, all this testing theories empirically. So the first What was the transition like? stress can make you more productive. thing I really studied was , I was definitely not the most worldly of since I was sure I would need it. I took You were a very young assistant professor students when I went to college, part- almost two years of graduate economet- in a business school. Some students were ly because I was pretty young. I was rics from Bo Honore at Princeton that probably older than you! lucky I went to Princeton, where life re- I’ve relied on ever since to do empirical That’s true. The first year I taught, there volved around a small college campus. work. And then when I came to Har- were actually a couple of students I had I remember being terrified when I took vard, I took classes on all sorts of em- gone to college with. I think that was my first math exam that I would be mas- pirical topics, from labor economics to helpful in being able to relate to the sively outclassed by all the kids around finance to . MBA students. me from expensive private schools since In the end, I had both I went to a regular public school in Can- How are things different before and after and Ariel Pakes on my thesis commit- ada. It was quite a relief when I realized receiving tenure? tee, which I’m not sure had ever hap- I was able to hold my own and actual- Not all that different! Before getting ten- pened before! (A chapter in my thesis ly do well. Princeton was an incredible ure, you imagine having a huge celebra- was on empirical IO.) But this eclectic experience overall, both socially and ac- tion the day it happens. But actually, I background was a blessing for me in ademically—I encountered all sorts of found the experience to be more like the long run since I think it gave me a interesting personalities that I never “asymptoting toward tenure”’ rather unique perspective on macroeconomics. would have imagined existed, and had than getting tenure on any specific day amazing intellectual experiences. How do you and Jon Steinsson come up since there are so many steps in the pro- with so many good research ideas one af- Did you know you wanted to be a macro- cess, from getting your papers accept- ter another? What’s the secret? economist when you went from Princeton ed to the final votes at the University. to Harvard, and what got you interested I think the key thing is to work on I remember Steve Levitt giving a talk in the details of the data? things that inspire you. I sometimes when I was in grad school saying that tell students that everyone I’ve known by the time you get tenure you are so Not at all. I did my undergraduate thesis who has been successful in research has ensconced in the research lifestyle that at Princeton on business cycles, main- put an incredible amount of time into it, it’s hard to do anything different. I think ly because I heard that Mike Woodford and that’s hard to do unless you are tru- that is true. And of course, I enjoy what ly fascinated by what you’re working on. I’m doing. I think it’s easy to find things to be fasci- Your mom is an economics professor who Bergmann continued from page 10 nated by in macroeconomics since there started her career a generation ago. How are so many big questions on which we Related Articles do you think things have changed for don’t have great evidence. But of course, women in the economics profession over “Two Cheers for CSWEP?” Barbara R. Bergmann, The I might be a little biased on this . . . . Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Autumn, these years? 1998), pp. 185–189 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2646902 Your child is almost two years old now. Things have improved massively. When What has changed since Odin’s birth, “Pushing for a More Humane Society,” CSWEP News, Fall my mom went to grad school there was 2005 http://bit.ly/1OmMaPo what has been the biggest challenge and a quota of two women in her PhD class, how has new family changed the way you and when she was a kid, she remem- “Barbara Bergmann Wins 2004 Carolyn Shaw Bell Award,” CSWEP News, Winter 2005 http://bit.ly/1eh53Hk work? bers women not even being able to en- Every day is more fun since Odin has ar- ter the Harvard graduate library. There “Barbara Bergmann, VFA Fabulous Feminist,” The Fab- ulous Autobiographies, Veteran Feminists of America rived. Of course, the days are also short- still aren’t a lot of women in a field like http://bit.ly/1TQZcsd er and my schedule has to be more care- macroeconomics. But I think there has ful and compact. I can’t stay at the office been a sea change since when my mom entered the profession. 2015 ISSUE II 11 Calls & Announcements

Visit cswep.org for full details on each of the CSWEP Call for Applications— CSWEP Call for Liaisons below opportunities, including submission Haworth Committee Mentoring CSWEP needs you! Help us collect data for the guidelines for paper and application calls as well Funding CSWEP survey and share news of CSWEP oppor- as participant, panelist and paper titles for cur- The Haworth Committee administers co-spon- tunities with your professional networks. To serve rently scheduled sessions. sorship of mentoring events and experiences as a liaison to your department, group or agency, CSWEP Call for Nominations through the Joan Haworth Mentoring Fund and email us today! Visit CSWEP.org [link to: https:// 2015 Carolyn Shaw Bell Award CSWEP experimental funding. Most successful www.aeaweb.org/committees/cswep/Liaison_ applications are for less than $1K and they must Network.php] for a list of economists serving in The Carolyn Shaw Bell Award is given annually to be consistent with the mission of CSWEP. Success- the CSWEP Liaison Network. an individual (male or female) who has furthered ful applicants will be asked to write a summary of the status of women in the economics profes- what they have gained from the mentoring effort. Questions? Contact [email protected] sion, through example, achievements, increasing our understanding of how women can advance in Deadline: Ongoing. the economics profession and mentoring others. Nominations should include a nomination letter, updated CV and three or more supporting letters, with preferably at least two from mentees. As this Directory of CSWEP Board Members award celebrates mentoring, nomination letters should be geared toward that activity, rather than toward academic achievements. All nominations Marjorie B. McElroy, (323) 259-2905 Columbia University Petra Todd, at-large are automatically kept alive for consideration by Chair [email protected] 1012 International Affairs Professor of Economics the Award Committee for a period of three years. Professor of Economics Building University of Pennsylvania Deadline: September 28, 2015. Duke University Cecilia Conrad, 420 W. 118th Street 3718 Locust Walk, Durham, NC 27708-0097 at-large New York, NY 10027 McNeil 160 CSWEP Call for Papers @ (919) 660-1840 Vice President, MacArthur (212) 854-5488 Philadelphia, PA 19104 [email protected] Fellows Program [email protected] (215) 898-4084 2016 Eastern Economic Association 140 S. Dearborn Street [email protected] Meeting, Washington, DC Margaret Levenstein, Chicago, IL 60603-5285 Ragan Petrie, Associate Chair, (312) 726-8000 Southern Anne Winkler, February 25–28, 2016 Survey [email protected] Representative Midwestern Washington Marriott Wardman Park Executive Director, Associate Professor of Representative Organizer: Amalia Miller, University of Virginia Michigan Census Linda Goldberg, Economics Professor of Economics Research Data Center at-large George Mason University University of Missouri– CSWEP will sponsor a number of sessions at the Adjunct Professor of Vice President of 4400 University Drive, St. Louis annual meeting of the Eastern Economic Associa- and Financial Intermediation MSN 1B2 One University Boulevard and Director of Center for tion. One or two sessions are available for persons Public Policy Fairfax, VA 22030 St. Louis, MO 63121 Ross School of Business Global Banking Studies (703) 993-4842 (314) 516-5563 submitting an entire session (3 or 4 papers) or a University of Michigan Federal Reserve Bank of [email protected] [email protected] complete panel on a specific topic in any area of 3257 Institute for Social New York economics. Individual abstracts are also accepted Research 33 Liberty Street Kosali Simon, Madeline Zavodny, New York, NY 10045 CeMENT Director Newsletter Oversight with a particular solicitation for papers in the topic 426 Thompson Street Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248 (212) 720-2836 Professor, School of Editor areas of gender, , labor econom- (734) 615-9088 [email protected] Public and Environmental Professor of Economics ics and innovation, though work in other areas will [email protected] Affairs Agnes Scott College Kevin Lang, at-large also be accepted. Deadline: October 15, 2015. Indiana University 141 E. College Avenue Terra McKinnish, Professor of Economics Room 359, Decatur, GA 30030 Associate Chair, Boston University, Room 1315 East Tenth Street (404) 471-6377 CSWEP Call for Proposals @ 2016 Mentoring 302A Bloomington, IN 47405 mzavodny@agnesscott. Midwest Economics Association Associate Professor of Boston, MA 02215 (812) 856-3850 edu Meeting, Evanston, IL Economics (617) 353-5694 [email protected] University of Colorado [email protected] April 1–3, 2016, Hilton Orrington Organizer: Boulder, CO 80309-0256 Anne E. Winkler, University of Missouri–St. Louis (303) 492-6770 Amalia Miller, Eastern terra.mckinnish@colo- Representative CSWEP will sponsor sessions at the 2016 Midwest rado.edu Associate Professor of Newsletter Staff Economics Association meeting. One or two ses- Economics P.O. Box 400182 Marjorie McElroy, Editor sions are available for persons submitting an en- Bevin Ashenmiller, Western Charlottesville, VA 22904- Amalia Miller & Ragan Petrie, Co-editors tire session (3 or 4 papers) or a complete panel on 4182 Representative Madeline Zavodny, Oversight Editor a specific topic in any area of economics. CSWEP Associate Professor of (434) 924-6750 also welcomes specific suggestions for topics and Economics [email protected] Jennifer Socey, Assistant Editor Occidental College Leda Black, Graphic Designer potential panelists for one or two career develop- 1600 Campus Road Serena Ng, at-large ment panels. Deadline: October 23, 2015. Los Angeles, CA 90041 Professor of Economics