<i>Review of Economics and Statistics</i> 2025 Annual Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current Editorial Board:Treb Allen, Dartmouth CollegeMarcella Alsan, Harvard UniversityPierre Azoulay, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyMichael Dinerstein, Duke UniversityWill Dobbie (Co-Chair), Harvard UniversityRaymond Fisman (Co-Chair), Boston UniversityPeter Hull, Brown UniversityScott Kominers, Harvard UniversityPaulina Oliva, University of Southern CaliforniaTavneet Suri, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyStephen Terry, University of MichiganRecently Retired from the Editorial Board:Benjamin R. Handel, University of California, BerkeleyBrian A. Jacob, University of MichiganTable 1—Manuscripts Submitted and PublishedThis table shows the trends in papers submitted and published over the past five years. Submission numbers remained steady from 2020 to 2021, then declined by 10% in 2022 and an additional 4% in 2023. Submission numbers increased 13% in 2024. The number of published papers increased between 2021 and 2024 due to the publication of larger issues.Table 2—Status of Manuscripts by Year of SubmissionThis table shows the status of manuscripts submitted over the past five years. The number of papers summarily rejectedin 2024 was at its highest in the most recent five years, at 64%. The percent of papers sent out for review but ultimately rejected in 2024 was at its lowest over the past five years, at 27%. Acceptance rates ranged from 6% to 11% of papers submitted. Papers submitted in 2024 have not had enough time to accurately reflect the acceptance rate.Table 3—Decision Time for Manuscripts Sent for ReviewThis table reports the decision time for manuscripts sent out to referees for review over the past five years. The average decision time for papers that were sent to referees has remained steady, ranging from 86 to 95 days.Table 4—Distribution of First Decision Times, by Submission YearThis table includes all first-round paper submissions and shows the distribution of decision times in monthly increments for the past five years. This table also reflects the improvement in the journal's decision turnaround times. In 2024, 88% of manuscripts received a decision within three months and 98% within six months.Table 5—Subject Matter of Published Manuscripts, 2024This table shows the distribution of subject matter of papers published in 2024. These papers covered a variety of subjects, but the most common subjects were microeconomics, mathematical and quantitative methods, and labor and demographic economics.Table 3.Decision Time in Days for Manuscripts Sent to Referees for ReviewYearFraction Summarily RejectedAverage Decision TimeMedian Decision Time75% Percentile90th PercentileNumber of Papers Sent to Referees202068%8684102122765202160%8684100118657202260%9594109137649202355%9487112144641202465%8975109165558Decision times are for papers sent out for review. Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. Data were included for 50 papers submitted in 2024 that did not have a decision yet.Table 4.Distribution of First Decision Times, by Submission Year20202021202220232024Months to ResponseMonthly PercentCumulative PercentMonthly PercentCumulative PercentMonthly PercentCumulative PercentMonthly PercentCumulative PercentMonthly PercentCumulative Percent15555626258585555666627624664628631076322842086188019821288412961197149499159353992994986973966<199<1991992992987<199<199<199<1991998<1100<1100<1100<199<19990100010001000100<199100100010001000100010011010001000100010001001201000100010001000100Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. Data were included for 50 papers submitted in 2024 that did not have a decision yet.Table 5.Subject Matter of Published Manuscripts, 2024JELSubject CategoryAGeneral Economics and Teaching0BMethodology/History of Thought0CMathematical and Quantitative Methods15DMicroeconomics20EMacro and Monetary Economics8FInternational Economics10GFinancial Economics0HPublic Economics5IHealth, Education, and Welfare12JLabor and Demographic Economics14KLaw and Economics1LIndustrial Organization3MBusiness Economics0NEconomic History5OEconomic Development8PEconomic Systems0QAgricultural/Natural Resources5RUrban, Rural, and Regional Economics7ZMisc. and Special Topics0Derived from JEL codes reported for each manuscript for the 2024 publication year.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.106 | 0.104 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".