Research Paper: Final Submission

Due by 11:59 PM on Tuesday, December 8, 2020

Research Paper - Final Submission
What should I submit?
Elements of your research paper
Rubric

Research Paper - Final Submission

Research papers are fairly formulaic, and that’s a good thing - it helps readers know where to look for information, depending on what they want to get out of it.

What should I submit?

Your paper is due at 11:59pm December 08. I cannot accept extensions, as there are external grading deadlines I need to meet.

You should submit the following:

Final paper in pdf or docx format
Stata do-file with all analysis you conducted
Stata log file with results for analysis conducted in your do-file.

I will grade your papers following the rubric. If you would like me to share comments, you must opt-in by filling out the feedback survey. If you do not fill it out, you will not receive feedback!

Elements of your research paper

A reasonable approach is to pull up an academic paper you’re citing that is in the economics literature and see how it’s structured. However, here is more general guide. While a good paper will meet these criteria, please note that, this is not a grading rubric!

General/Style

First-person active voice! (I estimate a regression, NOT “A regression is estimated”)
- Single-authored paper first person singular, “I.” (You’re not the queen!)
- Joint-authored paper first person plural, “we.”
- Don’t believe me? Check out any economics paper published in the past 20 years. There’s some variation in I vs. we, but all use active voice.
Paper written in present tense
Paper divided into numbered, labeled sections.
A research paper is not an essay!
- Personal opinions don’t have a place
- Sources should be primarily academic (peer-reviewed journals, working papers, etc.), maybe some non-academic sources for motivation only
- Clear, labeled sections

Abstract & Title

You’ll need a title and an abstract

Descriptive title
Abstract that summarizes the paper and findings in 200 words or less

Introduction

In an economics paper, and introduction stands alone! That is, a tired person could read the introduction and understand what you did, what you found, and why it matters. Our papers are not mystery novels - there’s no need for a plot twist on page 8!

I’m a big fan of the introduction formula, which is written for folks writing a longer academic paper, but the principles are still solid.

Guidelines and structure

Introduction reads like an academic article. Motivates, describes what you do and what you find. (Almost like a mini-paper!)
- Reader can infer all main points of paper just from introduction
States your research question clearly
Explains what economic theory says about the potential answers to your questions, and/or defines clear hypotheses that you test
Describes why your topic is important
Describes what you do
Describes what you find
Describe how it contributes to knowledge

Motivation or Background or Literature Review

What you include here depends on topic. Sometimes the reader needs to know how your question links to economic theory. Sometimes it’s more important to know specific context first, and then to turn to the literature. Sometimes it’s most important to summarize what the literature already knows. Your call.
At the back of your mind, when motivating your paper, ask “what is the link to economics”?
- If studying discrimination, what does economic theory tell us about why discrimination exists/persists
- If studying stock market returns, what do economic models tell us about our ability to predict returns?
Includes papers that have answered your research question (or similar research questions)
Research results described in present tense (“Smith finds,” not “Smith found”)
Papers are put in context. That is, rather than just listing paper A and finding, paper B and finding, etc, you link each one (or group) to their contribution (as relates to your research question)

Methodology/Data

Describe the data you use, where did it come from? If you didn’t create it, cite it
What is the unit of observation? Is it people, households, states, etc? Make sure the unit is appropriate to your question
If you’re working with individual-level data, what is the age range you want in your sample? What years of data do you need?
If dealing with labor force variables, do you want all people of working age, all those who are in the labor force, or all who are employed?
Describe your methodology. Are you estimating a model using OLS? If so, say so.
Clarify whether we are looking at causal estimates or something else. What are the estimated parameters of interest. What do they mean?
Correct standard errors: robust? Clustered? Something else?

Population model

Write out your population model!

If you’re using Word, use equation editor. Make it look nice.
Don’t forget the error term!
Use proper equation notation ( $β$ , $u$ , etc)
Use appropriate subscripts ( $i$ , $t$ , $y$ , etc)
All relevant variables explained/defined
Use “real names” to describe variables when possible (ie use $f e m a l e$ for women, not $w 1$ )
Make sure your variables are written correctly - an equation like $w a g e = α_{0} + α_{1} r a c e$ doesn’t make sense - race isn’t continuous!
If you are using a lot of categorical variables and find it awkward to write them out, you can simplify:
- Showing that you have state fixed effects:
$y_{s t} = β_{0} + β_{1} X_{s t} + β_{2} Z_{t} + . . . + f_{s} + u_{s t}$
and the in the text, “…where $f_{s}$ is a vector of state fixed effects”
- Including a set of occupational dummy variables $y_{s t} = β_{0} + β_{1} X_{s t} + β_{2} Z_{t} + . . . + \sum_{s = 1}^{K} δ_{S} D_{s} + u_{s t}$
and in the text, “…where $D_{k}$ is a dummy variable for occupation $s$ , from $s \in [1, S]$ ” (or something in that general spirit)

Results

When using categorical/dummy variables, what is your omitted category? Make sure you know and that it’s clear.
What are the units of your measures? Is that percent or percentage points?
Discuss using a reasonable number of decimal places (usually only 1 or 2)

Limitations or Discussion

Include as a separate section or integrate into results
What might us from making causal interpretations about our coefficient of interest?
- Omitted variable bias?
- Reverse causality?
- Measurement error?
Are the results externally valid?
What other considerations are important?

Conclusion

Brief summary of paper
Limitations (summary of limitations/discussion section)
Implications for policy
Implications for future research

Tables and Figures

Tables should be properly formatted. That is, they should be made in Excel (or LaTeX) and NEVER copied and pasted out of Stata
Variables should be described using real words. Ie, “number of children,” not “numchld.”
Tables and figures should be numbered (Table 1, Table 2, etc… Figure 1, Figure 2, etc.) and should also be given a title. Refer to tables by their numbers in the text.
Regression tables include standard errors. Use stars to indicate statistical significance. (The Stata package outreg2 is a big help!)
In most contexts, about 3 places past the decimal point is right, but it depends on the magnitudes. If you really want to be precise, set and stick to a reasonable number of significant digits. There’s no place for a number like 0.05403823 or 0.0000000 in your tables.

References

Use footnotes rather than endnotes
At the end of your paper, include list of references cited
You can format using APA, MLA, or Chicago style
- Citation Owl or Google Scholar will do it for you
In-text, cite with author and year (Author, Year; Author, Year) or (Author Year, Author Year)

Rubric

Download rubric here

Total: 100 marks	100 = Excellent	80 = Adequate	60 = Marginal	40 = Poor
Motivation/Literature (18 marks)
Introduction	Introduction provides complete overview of paper, motivates research question using sources	Introduction provides some overiew of paper, motivation clear with limited sources	Introduction vague; motivation minimal	Incomplete introduction, no motivation
Research question	Research question well identified, specific	Research question stated, not specific	Research question vague, not answerable	Cannot identify research question in paper
Literature	Important literature discussed and linked to topic	Important literature included, not linked to research question/paper	Scattered lit. discussion, poorly linked to topic (missing or irrelevant papers)	Sparse literature, not linked to topic

Methodology/Analysis (30 marks)
Data	Clear discussion of data sources and any data cleaning; data cleaned appropriately	Data sources referenced but incomplete discussion; some data issues overlooked	Limited discussion of data	No discussion of data sources or cleaning
Empirical methods	Methodology discussed and empirical methods applied correctly	Methodology generally correct, with some issues overlooked	Major errors in empirical methods	Fundamental misunderstanding of empirical methods/no microdata used
Discussion of results	Results discussed and interpreted clearly	Results discussed, but inadequate interpretation	Results presented without interpretation	Poor discussion of results, no interpretation
Choice of evidence	Presented evidence addresses research question, is well utilized	Presented evidence related, only partially addresses research question	Evidence related, but not directly relevant to research question.	Evidence does not address research question
Figures and tables	Figures and tables appropriate to analysis, easy to interpret	Appropriate figures/tables included, difficult to interpret	Irrelevant figures/tables included or key figures/tables missing	Insufficient figures/tables, poorly presented

Limitations	Limitations discussed and minimized through analysis	Limitations discussed, few steps to minimize	Incomplete discussion of limitations	No discussion of limitations
Conclusions/interpretation (18 marks)
Conclusions	Clear presentation of conclusions, qualifications, consequences, and contributions	Conclusions established, limited discussion implications and contributions	Fails to make clear conclusions, limited discussion of interpretation/contributions	Cannot discern conclusions
Critical thinking	Demonstrates independent and critical thinking	Demonstrates some independent and critical thinking	Limited evidence of independent and critical thinking	No evidence of independent and critical thinking
Argumentation	Assertions are qualified and well supported	Most assertions are qualified and well supported	Assertions are overly strong or unsupported	Assertions made in contrast to evidence or without evidence
Written presentation (24 marks)
Organization	Well organized, easy to understand	Good organization, some parts out of place	Unclear organization	Disorganized, impedes understanding
Writing style	Clear and easy to read	Awkward or wordy writing, clear planning	Readable but difficult to follow	Difficult to understand
Grammar	Few grammatical and typographical errors	Some grammatical and typographical errors, but do not impede understanding	Moderate grammatical errors/typos	Frequent errors impede understanding
Formatting	Meets all formatting requirements	Minor deviation from formatting requirements	Exceeds page limit/major deviation from formatting requirements	Formatting requirements completely disregarded
Replication code (10 marks)
Do-files and log	Well-documented, easy to read	Detailed documentation, somewhat confusing	Unclear documentation	Little to no documentation

Last updated on Nov 30, 2020