http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2007/02/four_new_econom.html Tyler Cowen reports that the American Economic Association is introducing four new journals, which presumably will instantly be "top-tier." Cowen writes, "Overall I consider this bad news. It expands the career-making power of one professional association and the editors it... en-us <p>Tyler Cowen <a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/02/four_new_econom.html">reports</a> that the American Economic Association is introducing four new journals, which presumably will instantly be "top-tier." Cowen writes, "Overall I consider this bad news. It expands the career-making power of one professional association and the editors it nominates. It further encourages overspecialization, and discourages general interest research. . . ."</p> <p>My first impression is the opposite.</p> http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2007/02/four_new_econom.html <p>I agree that "conversations about whether papers are "base hits" or "home runs." are silly. It's hard to know what the significance of a piece of research may be in the long run. There are so many examples of research that has been done, is ignored or resisted by the consensus for years, and then turns out to be very important. One of my favorite examples of this is the work of Georg Cantor on set theory. </p> http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/000942.html#098519 <p>Presumably the job of editor carries an upside of fame, fortune and increased influence within one's field. And (innocent look here) how hard could it be?</p> http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/000942.html#098593