IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v122y2020i3d10.1007_s11192-019-03332-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Write better, publish better

Author

Listed:
  • Diego Marino Fages

    (University of Nottingham)

Abstract

There is evidence that having more readable abstracts and introductions help authors get cited. I show that, in economics, there is also an effect of readability on the probability of publishing in a Top 5 journal (and in a higher-ranked journal in general). I compute readability measures for a set of working papers and examine the journals in which they get published. My results suggest that previous estimates of the effect on citations are downward biased, as higher-ranked journals are more widely read and cited.

Suggested Citation

  • Diego Marino Fages, 2020. "Write better, publish better," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1671-1681, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:122:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03332-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03332-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03332-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-019-03332-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCannon, Bryan C., 2019. "Readability and research impact," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 76-79.
    2. James J. Heckman & Sidharth Moktan, 2020. "Publishing and promotion in economics - The tyranny of the Top Five," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 23-32, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    3. James Hartley & James W. Pennebaker & Claire Fox, 2003. "Abstracts, introductions and discussions: How far do they differ in style?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(3), pages 389-398, July.
    4. Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn, 2013. "Cluttered writing: adjectives and adverbs in academia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 679-681, September.
    5. Hengel, E., 2017. "Publishing while Female. Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1753, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    6. Lu, Chao & Bu, Yi & Dong, Xianlei & Wang, Jie & Ding, Ying & Larivière, Vincent & Sugimoto, Cassidy R. & Paul, Logan & Zhang, Chengzhi, 2019. "Analyzing linguistic complexity and scientific impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 817-829.
    7. Dowling, Michael & Hammami, Helmi & Zreik, Ousayna, 2018. "Easy to read, easy to cite?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 100-103.
    8. Hollis, Aidan, 2001. "Co-authorship and the output of academic economists," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 503-530, September.
    9. Michael Dowling & Helmi Hammami & Ousayna Zreik, 2018. "Easy to read, easy to cite?," Post-Print hal-01958017, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    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. Ante, Lennart, 2022. "The relationship between readability and scientific impact: Evidence from emerging technology discourses," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    4. Feld, Jan & Lines, Corinna & Ross, Libby, 2024. "Writing matters," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 378-397.

    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. 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.
    3. Rose, Michael E. & Opolot, Daniel C. & Georg, Co-Pierre, 2022. "Discussants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    4. Shan Wang & Xiaojun Liu & Jie Zhou, 2022. "Readability is decreasing in language and linguistics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4697-4729, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Burke, Matt & Fry, John, 2019. "How easy is it to understand consumer finance?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 1-4.
    7. Önder, Ali Sina & Schweitzer, Sascha & Yilmazkuday, Hakan, 2021. "Specialization, field distance, and quality in economists’ collaborations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    8. Rodrigo Dorantes-Gilardi & Aurora A. Ramírez-Álvarez & Diana Terrazas-Santamaría, 2023. "Is there a differentiated gender effect of collaboration with super-cited authors? Evidence from junior researchers in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2317-2336, April.
    9. Edoardo Magnone, 2014. "A novel graphical representation of sentence complexity: the description and its application," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1301-1329, February.
    10. Laura C. Blanco, 2022. "Diferenciales salariales de género y sus determinantes para el personal académico en propiedad en la Universidad de Costa Rica. (Gender wage differentials and its determinants for tenured academics at," Working Papers 202204, Universidad de Costa Rica, revised May 2022.
    11. Ali Sina Önder & Sascha Schweitzer & Hakan Yilmazkuday, 2021. "Field Distance and Quality in Economists’ Collaborations," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2021-04, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.
    12. Jenny Bourne & Nathan Grawe & Nathan D. Grawe & Michael Hemesath & Maya Jensen, 2022. "Scholarly Activity among Economists at Liberal Arts Colleges: A Life Cycle Analysis," Working Papers 2022-01, Carleton College, Department of Economics.
    13. Rodrigo Dorantes-Gilardi & Aurora A. Ramírez-Álvarez & Diana Terrazas-Santamaría, 2021. "Is there a differentiated gender effect of collaboration with supercited authors? Evidence from early-career economists," Serie documentos de trabajo del Centro de Estudios Económicos 2021-05, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos.
    14. Dowling, Michael & Hammami, Helmi & Zreik, Ousayna, 2018. "Easy to read, easy to cite?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 100-103.
    15. van den Besselaar, Peter & Mom, Charlie, 2022. "The effect of writing style on success in grant applications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    16. Aboozar Hadavand & Daniel S. Hamermesh & Wesley W. Wilson, 2021. "Publishing Economics: How Slow? Why Slow? Is Slow Productive? Fixing Slow?," NBER Working Papers 29147, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Mila Getmansky Sherman & Heather E. Tookes, 2022. "Female Representation in the Academic Finance Profession," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 77(1), pages 317-365, February.
    18. Lei Lei & Sheng Yan, 2016. "Readability and citations in information science: evidence from abstracts and articles of four journals (2003–2012)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1155-1169, September.
    19. Grossmann, Axel & Lee, Allissa, 2022. "An analysis of finance journal accessibility: Author inclusivity and journal quality," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    20. McCannon, Bryan C., 2019. "Readability and research impact," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 76-79.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Readability; Journals; Ranking; Top 5; NBER;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A1 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics

    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:spr:scient:v:122:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03332-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.