I've never thought about which program was used to generate the papers I review.įor those who dislike using LaTeX when working with coauthors because of the lack of track-changes, a very easy solution is to use, which now incorporates the old ShareLaTeX system and easily tracks changes and allows you to revert to previous versions of your document. I do think that poor formatting probably sends a negative signal to editors and reviewers, but papers can be formatted professionally in either Word or LaTeX. I don't think using LaTeX makes it more likely that a paper is accepted. Focus on finding knowledge gaps and how your paper fills them and your papers will be better received. My findings and set up helped (I think they were great, but I'm not biased at all), but I found the right gap in the literature, why that gap mattered, and why my paper was the first to fill in that gap. The single time I've published in a Top 5 journal, I probably wrote the best introduction I've written so far. They found a question no else could answer that was important and found a way to answer it. Go read a recently published paper in the QJE or AER and most often the introduction simply rocks. If you think your introduction is good, think again.
Write an awesome introduction/conclusion. What does matter? Here are the two best investments involving your paper (other than your findings) that influence publication odds: I'm pretty sure you could make word look nearly exactly like latex if you want to.ĭoes it matter? I'd be surprised if you did a latex/word RCT and it matters.
0 kommentar(er)
