My opinion is that nobody should pay attention to any of the Nobels.

I have simply accepted that publication in an elite journal means that the paper was interesting, not that it was correct. There are lots of empirical indicators that peer review does not sort more reliable findings to more prestigious journals.

Article link: doi.org/10.1093/jae/...

Authors of provisionally accepted proposals must then submit a full version of their articles no later than May 15, after which the manuscript will undergo peer review before final acceptance.

Submissions (extended abstracts are accepted, full papers preferred) should be emailed to [email protected]. Paper proposals are due January 15, 2026. Authors will be notified of preliminary acceptance by February 9.

RLE was affiliated with IZA from 2007 to 2025. Following the closure of IZA, the series will be housed at Binghamton University starting in 2026. I'll be joining Sol Polachek as co-editor.

RLE is an annual series which publishes new peer-reviewed research on important and policy-relevant topics in labor economics. Since its inception, RLE has published over 400 articles on many themes, with authors ranging from grad students to Nobel Prize and John Bates Clark award winners.

Suitable articles include, but are not limited to:
• Meta-analyses
• Critical discussion of widespread research practices
• Re-evaluations of specific high-profile papers (potentially including robustness replication or conceptual commentary)
• Narrative reviews

Heinz beanz, eaten directly from the can

This affects maybe 5-10% of econ papers.

Perhaps the field of economics should take that as some kind of warning.

I grew up in Illinois, where "downstate"=not Chicago, so I find it perplexing when people in New York think there are places outside of metro NYC which are not part of upstate.

Aren't you not disinclined to decline to not provide a reference? (Y/N)

Like, if costs were linear in SE reduction (ok, false) and all we cared about is power (ok, also false), this would be a proof that 80% power cannot possibly by the optimal point to stop. The current norm is "let's stop making hay as soon as the sun starts shining."

If anything, it's a justification to go beyond 80% power. Once you're at that point, there's a higher power payoff per SE reduction than there is at essentially any other power level, so unless the cost per unit SE reduction is skyrocketing, it's almost certainly worth your while to past 80%.

Your firm sells N sandwiches for the market price of $10 each. The n-th sandwich costs $n to make. Profit-maximization: produce until marginal cost is $10. Your framework: stop after the first sandwich, it has the highest benefit/cost ratio ($10/$1).

This sounds like an argument *against* optimality: Why stop at 80% power if, at the margin, you're getting amazing benefits per unit of cost?

MIT names professorships after its professors, and I find it funny that they *don't* do this. Like, why is the Peter A. Diamond Professor anyone other than Peter A. Diamond? Surely he is the most Peter A. Diamond-ish professor available.