Academic journals don't usually generate the kind of buzz that has readers counting down the days to the publication date. But there's an intriguing exception on the horizon. On September 1, the American Institute for Economic Research's Econ Journal Watch will publish a symposium of economic "notes from the underground": essays written by guilt-ridden economists confessing instances of "moral or intellectual compromise" in their work. Qualifying sins may include:
- Building models one does not really believe to be useful or relevant.
- Making simplifications that obscure or omit important things.
- Using data one does not really believe in.
- Focusing on the statistical significance of one’s findings while quietly doubting economic significance.
- Engaging in data mining.
- Drawing “policy implications” that one knows are inappropriate or misleading.
- Keeping the discourse “between the 40-yard lines” so as to avoid being outspoken; knowingly eliding fundamental issues.
- Tilting the flavor of policy judgments to make a paper more acceptable to referees, editors, publishers, or funders.
- Disguising one’s methodological or ideological views, such as by omitting revealing activities or publications from one’s vitae.
- For government, institute, or corporate economists: Having to significantly play along with things one does not believe in
After the year we've had, I will be profoundly disappointed if these essays turn out to be lame.
