|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Cuevas, Pilar (Universidad de Sevilla); Hamermesh, Daniel (University of Texas at Austin); Sevilla, Almudena (London School of Economics) |
| Abstract: | We describe a classroom-tested method for winnowing economic ideas so that research proceeds only on those that are likely to pay off—in publications and scholarly influence. The method distinguishes projects—and the eventual scholarly articles—that are both original and important—the sine qua non to make something worth working on. We discuss how the research should be written up to be intelligible and publishable, stressing the importance of attention-grabbing titles and abstracts. We offer examples of bad and good-writing in the English language—the medium of scholarly exchange in the economics profession—and how students react to them. |
| Keywords: | economics education, teaching economics, graduate education, research training, academic writing, economics pedagogy |
| JEL: | A23 B41 A11 |
| Date: | 2026–09 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp18948 |
| By: | Vu, Patrick; Faridani, Stefan |
| Abstract: | In the empirical sciences, significance thresholds often determine whether findings are treated as evidence of an effect. This paper studies how likely findings that just meet conventional significance thresholds are to remain significant in replications of the same sample size. To answer this question, we estimate the expected replication probability conditional on a given p-value among published studies for experimental economics, psychology, and social science. We validate this measure by showing it accurately predicts actual replication outcomes, outperforming prediction markets. A finding with a p-value of 0.05 has an expected replication probability ranging from 0.10 to 0.25 across fields. Low replicability reflects small true effects in original studies rather than selective reporting. Significant findings are therefore often informative about the existence of an effect, but frequently overstate its magnitude. Finally, we develop a nonparametric estimator and apply it to economics literatures that use larger samples, finding higher but still low replication probabilities. |
| Date: | 2026 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:i4rdps:322 |
| By: | Matthew Schwartz; Isaiah Andrews; Jesse M. Shapiro |
| Abstract: | We introduce an open-source workflow that enables an LLM to reproduce, improve, and extend an economics article using the article’s published replication package. First, the workflow attempts to reproduce the original calculations, checks for discrepancies with published findings, and performs automated sensitivity analysis. Across 4, 452 published replication packages for five economics journals, the workflow flags discrepancies in 3, 460 articles or their appendices. Second, the workflow improves the original calculations by using a different implementation or algorithm. In 496 articles, the workflow is able to reduce a calculation’s computation time, at similar or greater accuracy, by more than a factor of 10. Third, the workflow extends the original analysis. In 923 articles, the workflow develops an extension that does not appear in the original article and that is aligned with the original article’s goals and assumptions. |
| JEL: | C80 |
| Date: | 2026–09 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:35782 |
| By: | Cai, Yong; Pernoud, Agathe; Xu, Boli |
| Abstract: | This paper studies the effects of p-hacking on the bias of published estimates when papers with statistically significant results are selectively published. We show that fast p-hacking-actions that lead to large changes in p-values-always exacerbates the bias from selective publication. On the other hand, slow p-hacking-actions that lead to small changes in p-values-exacerbates bias when selection is weak, but mitigates it when selection is strong. In a model featuring both types of p-hacking, we show that a normality assumption identifies the true distribution of effects as well as the counterfactual mean that would obtain under selective publication without p-hacking. Applying the model to meta-analyses on the effects of behavioral nudges and development aid, we find suggestive evidence that both mitigation and exacerbation can arise in practice. |
| Date: | 2026 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:i4rdps:329 |
| By: | Aurélien Goutsmedt (ISPOLE - UCLouvain - Université Catholique de Louvain = Catholic University of Louvain, F.R.S.-FNRS, ICHEC - Brussels Management School [Bruxelles]); Francesco Sergi (LIPHA - Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire d'étude du Politique Hannah Arendt Paris-Est - UPEC UP12 - Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne - Paris 12 - Université Gustave Eiffel); Juan Acosta (Univalle - Universidad del Valle [Cali]) |
| Abstract: | What do economists do in central banks? Why do central banks hire economists? This book investigates the evolving role of economists and economic knowledge within central banks, arguing that their current centrality is neither self-evident nor historically inevitable. While the presence and influence of economists in central banks today may seem natural, this book shows that it is the result of a complex, gradual, and uneven historical process shaped by institutional structures, disciplinary transformations, and shifting relationships between science and policy. Drawing on a rich but dispersed body of literature, the book traces how economists progressively gained authority through the establishment of statistics departments, the adoption of macroeconometric models, and the emergence of a shared cognitive infrastructure between academia and central banks. Rather than focusing on individuals or doctrines, it examines general trends and institutional shifts across a series of national case studies to show how central banks function as boundary organizations, at the intersection of policy and science. |
| Date: | 2026–10–01 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05083645 |