Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.5.621
Table 1Manuscripts Submitted and Published, eight to nine. The number of papers published in
19802013
the last several years has fluctuated around 100,
Year Submitted Published but increased to 122 in 2011, to 130 in 2012, and
to 121 in 2013. This reflects the increase in sub-
1980 641 127
1981 784 115 missions combined with a stationary acceptance
1982 820 120 rate (see Table 2).
1983 932 129 Table 2 shows the status of cohorts of manu-
1984 921 138 scripts submitted in each of the last five years
1985 952 128
1986 987 123 as of November 1, 2013, including a measure
1987 843 99 of the acceptance rate for each annual submis-
1988 844 100 sion cohort. Approximately 8 percent of 2009
1989 946 116 submissions were accepted. The maximum
1990 911 100
1991 884 110 acceptance rate, equal to the sum of accepted,
1992 950 108 pending, and revise-and-resubmitted manu-
1993 900 94 scripts ranges from 7 percent to 8 percent from
1994 953 91 2009 to 2012. The acceptance rate appears to
1995 929 88
1996 976 85 have dropped by one percentage point between
1997 976 66 2010 and 2012. Too few 2013 manuscripts have
1998 900 71 been acted on to accurately estimate the accep-
1999 927 79
2000 989 85
tance rate for that year.
2001 931 96 Table 3 shows turnaround time distributions
2002 990 103 for first decisions for 2012 and 2013 submis-
2003 1,223 106 sions. The 2013 distribution is close to that of
2004 1,265 92
2005 1,337 98
the 2012 distribution with one difference: the
2006 1,304 98 summarily reject rate which is approximated by
2007 1,308 101 the fraction of manuscripts that received a deci-
2008 1,326 99 sion in the first two months rose from 38 percent
2009 1,398 89
2010 1,477 106
in 2012 to 48 percent in 2013. The median deci-
2011 1,645 122 sion time is slightly over two months, 95 percent
2012 1,648 130 of manuscripts are decided before 6 months,
2013 1,714 121 and virtually all manuscripts have received a
Notes: Submissions for each year include all new sub- decision by the end of the eighth month. These
missions from November 1 of the previous year through distributions mark a decided improvement com-
October 31 of the stated year. Publications for each year pared to the years prior to 2008 (see previous
include the December issue of the preceding year and Reports of the Editor).
the February, April, June, August, and October issue of
the stated year. Published does not include Papers and Table 4 indicates that the total time from sub-
Proceedings or invited papers and lectures. mission to acceptance for papers published in
2013 rose by 17 weeks compared to 2012; one
week of this increase is due to a slightly lon-
ger review time at the journal (41 instead of 40
online submissions. Submissions continued to weeks), but the rest is the result of slower return
climb by approximately 4 percent in the next time by authors coupled with the publication of a
two years but leveled off for a few subsequent few comments and replies that had gone through
years. In 2009, they started increasing again. more revision rounds than is typical. The length
In 2009 and 2010 they rose by approximately 5 of time to publication decreased from 54 to 49
percent per year. In 2011, submissions grew by weeks. This improvement was achieved by the
11 percent, rising to a total of 1,645. This num- transition to six issues per year in combination
ber remained stable in 2012 with a total of 1,648 with thicker volumes for each regular issue.
submissions, but in 2013 we saw another 4 per- Table 5 shows the number and length of each
cent increase with a total of 1,714 submissions. type of publication (Article, Shorter Paper, and
To accommodate the increasing number of sub- Comment or Reply) over the last three years.
missions, the Executive Committee recently The number of Articles rose from 73 in 2011 to
voted to increase the number of Coeditors from 87 in 2012, but returned to its previous level in
VOL. 104 NO. 5 American Economic Review 623
Notes: Entries show status as of November 1, 2013. Figures in parentheses show row percents rounded to the nearest integer.
Pending manuscripts include submissions and revisions that were undergoing review as of November 1, 2013, while Revise
and Resubmit manuscripts are manuscripts that have been returned and are in the hands of the authors on that date. Summary
rejections are manuscripts rejected without referee review.
Notes: Does not include Papers and Proceedings or invited papers and lectures.
Subject category
General economics and teaching 2
Schools of economic thought and methodology 0
Mathematical and quantitative methods 14
Microeconomics 58
Macroeconomics and monetary economics 17
International economics 9
Financial economics 15
Public economics 16
Health, education, and welfare 19
Labor and demographic economics 32
Law and economics 6
Industrial organization 29
Business administration and business economics; marketing; accounting 3
Economic history 9
Economic development, technological change, and growth 16
Economic systems 2
Agricultural and natural resource economics; environmental and 4
ecological economics
Urban, rural, and regional economics 6
Other special topics 5
Notes: Derived from JEL codes reported for each manuscript. Does not include Papers and
Proceedings or invited papers and lectures. Entries represent totals for February, April, June,
August, October, and December issues.
Notes: Table includes regular articles, shorter papers, and comments and replies. Table excludes invited papers and lectures.
VOL. 104 NO. 5 American Economic Review 625
The current number of Coeditors (including The AER is supported by an outstanding staff
the Editor-in-Chief) is eight: Marianne Bertrand located in Pittsburgh. Steve Stelling has con-
(University of Chicago, Booth School of tinued to serve as Managing Editor and Kelly
Business), Martin Eichenbaum (Northwestern Markel as Assistant Managing Editor during
University), Hilary Hoynes (Berkeley), Luigi 2013. They did an outstanding job handling
Pistaferri (Stanford University), Debraj Ray the major demands of the journal and con-
(New York University), Larry Samuelson (Yale tinually sought improvements in operations.
University), and Andrzej Skrzypacz (Stanford The Review has been in capable hands under
University, Graduate School of Business). I am their supervision. The Reviews Copyeditor,
deeply indebted to the Coeditors for their dedi- Samantha Bennet, and Editorial Assistants Matt
cation, professionalism, hard work, and insight. Roberson, Emilee Stanford, and Ethan Zaharia,
Each has handled a demanding job with energy have also been excellent. In addition, valuable
and good humor, and their collective efforts research support has been provided by Annette
626 AEA PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS MAY 2014
Blanar and Salma Khwaja. Several assistants to and energy they have devoted to the advance-
the Coeditors have also furnished needed and ment of our field. In addition, this year I wish
important support, including Barbara McCarthy again to announce awards for referees who have
(Stanford University, Graduate School of provided exceptional service to the Review by
Business), Maggie Newman (University of a large number and quality of referee reports.
Chicago, Booth School of Business), Sharline Those individuals receiving AER Excellence in
Samuelson (Yale University), and SevgiYuksel Refereeing Awards are designated in the lists
(New York University). that follow.
As always, this report ends with the list of
referees who have volunteered their services
during 2013, more than 1,500 in number. I Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg,
extend my deepest appreciation for the time Editor