It was a pleasure to participate at the 10th annual EAAE #PhD. workshop at #Corvinus University in Budapest on 5-7 June. My congratulations to @Attila Jambor and his colleagues for organizing such a successful event and thanks for their gracious hospitality. Congratulations also to the new generation of students for the quality of their work and their admirable peer-to-peer support.

I was asked to talk about some of the key requirements for writing a good research paper. I appreciated this opportunity, recognizing that a Ph.D. is a long journey where a good research paper can be an important career springboard. Attached are ten takeaway messages I tried to impart, which reflect my experience in a policy environment and more recently as a journal editor.

1.    Make writing the paper a priority. Students spend months or even years at the “coal face” with their data and can become so close to the material that they do not step back and communicate their insight in a way that is intelligible to someone not equally immersed in their subject area. Ultimately, writing as an afterthought lowers the chances of a paper being published and widely cited.

2.    Recognise that good economics and good writing go hand-in-hand. If the ideas are muddled, you will struggle to express them well. Writing is a great way of “stress testing” your argument.

3.    Write a draft or annotated outline of your paper before you even start the work. This should clarify why the issue matters; what the literature tells us so far; what your main hypothesis or argument is; how you propose to examine it; what you will potentially show that we didn’t know already; and what the potential implications are. The final outcome may of course diverge, but this can guide the research process and make the final write-up easier.

4.    Pay particular attention to the title, abstract and introduction. Often this is as much as many people will read. Make sure the title is explicit about the research question and that the abstract makes sense in its own terms. Even people citing your paper may read no further. Make sure the introduction is explicit about significance (in the substantive rather than statistical sense) of the question you are addressing and the insight that you offer.

5.    Keep the writing as simple as possible. There are several great books on writing: I encourage everyone to read them.* Short courses are also increasingly common: my co-editor Doris Läpple organises a course at Göttingen University, while Steve Wiggins regularly presents a half day course at the AES conference. Non-native English speakers may feel they are being asked to run before they can walk, but if you keep the language simple editors find it easier to help. So observe some basic rules. In particular, express one idea per paragraph; use the first sentence to make the point; the second to explain.

6.    Keep the maths simple too. Not everyone will read through every equation. Of course the exposition needs to be precise, but the method section of your paper should focus on the economic reasoning and explain the theoretical underprinnings and empirical strategy. Clear signposting can ensure that the equations do not pop up out of nowhere. The results section should also prioritize. Don’t describe every number: if the paper an econometric study, focus on the central hypothesis before moving onto control variables; if it is a modelling paper, start with they key results of interest beore drilling down to effects of secondary concern.

7.    Work at it! Don’t let your Ph.D. supervisor off the hook. If they are including their name on your research paper it is part of their duty to ensure it is written to a publishable standard. Re-draft and polish. Get help from an editor if necessary and ask a colleague with a different specialism to look at the paper with fresh eyes. I know from personal experience how difficult it is to edit for both content and style – I suspect few people can do it in one go.

8.    For journal submissions, read the Authors’ Guidelines. Consider the most suitable outlet for your research and prepare your paper in a way that conforms to that journal’s expectations. For econometric studies, especially those applying experimental methods, journals are paying increased attention to whether authors have followed best practice. Organise and present your material in a way that will allay the concerns of a diligent reviewer.

9.    Don’t be disheartened by rejection. In the applied field of agricultural economics, there is a diverse and competitive journal landscape and it may take time to find a suitable outlet for your work. Don’t take a rejection letter personally. I have had to reject papers from established researchers who are smarter than me and whose work I admire; it happens even to the best. Most editors and reviewers seek to provide constructive feedback. The occasional reviewer may adopt a tone they would not use without the veil of anonymity, but journal editors will usually discount that in their overall assessment.

10.    We are all learning! I am conscious that there are writing mistakes I have made myself and have still not ironed out. I don’t necessarily agree with all the points in the books below, but each has the virtue of prompting constructive self-criticism.

William Zinsser (30th Anniversary edition, 2006), On Writing Well; Steven Pinker (2014), The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century; Deirdre McCloskey (2000), Economical Writing; Marc Bellemare (2022). Doing economics: What you should have learned in grad school—but didn’t.