Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Phd Paper Writing

Phd Paper Writing

Ratings:

4.5

(2)
|Views: 87|Likes:
Published by nqdinh
The method, tips for writing essay, thesis, paper for your graduate course.
The method, tips for writing essay, thesis, paper for your graduate course.

More info:

Published by: nqdinh on Jul 24, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/22/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Writing Tips for Ph. D. Students
John H. Cochrane
1
,
2
Graduate School of BusinessUniversity of Chicago5807 S. WoodlawnChicago IL 60637.773 702 3059. john.cochrane@gsb.uchicago.eduhttp://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john.cochrane/research/Papers/June 8, 2005
1
Always put your contact info on the front page so that people can
nd your paper and sendyou comments! It’s the 21st century — get a web page. If your paper is ready for a faculty memberto read it, it should be on your webpage. Put the date on the paper so people know if they arereading a new version.
2
I thank Toby Moskowitz for helpful comments.
 
1 Organization
Figure out the
one 
central and novel contribution of your paper. Write this down in oneparagraph. As with all your writing, this must be concrete. Don’t write “I analyzed dataon executive compensation and found many interesting results.” Explain what the centralresults
ar
. For example, Fama and French 1992 start their abstract with: “Two easilymeasured variables, size and book-to-market equity, combine to capture the cross-sectionalvariation in average stock returns associated with market
β 
, size, leverage, book-to-marketequity, and earnings-price ratios.”Distilling your one central contribution will take some thought. It will cause some pain,because you will start to realize how much you’re going to have to throw out. Once you doit, though, you’re in a much better position to focus the paper on that one contribution, andhelp readers to get it quickly.Your readers are busy and impatient. No reader will ever read the whole thing from startto
nish. Readers skim. You have to make it easy for them to skim. Most readers want toknow your basic result. Only a few care how it is di
ff 
erent from others. Only a few care if it holds up with di
ff 
erent variable de
nitions, di
ff 
erent instrument sets, etc.Organize the paper in “triangular” or “newspaper” style, not in “joke” or “novel” style.Notice how newspapers start with the most important part, then
ll in background later forthe readers who kept going and want more details. A good joke or a mystery novel has along windup to the
nal punchline. Don’t write papers like that — put the punchline rightup front and then slowly explain the joke. Readers don’t stick around to
nd the punchlinein Table 12.The vast majority of Ph.D. student papers and workshop presentations (not all by stu-dents!) get this exactly wrong, and we never really
nd out what the contribution of thepaper is until the last page, the last table, and the last 5 minutes of the seminar.A good paper is not a travelogue of your search process. We don’t care how you came to
gure out the right answer. We don’t care about the hundreds of things you tried that didnot work. Save it for your memoirs.
Abstract 
Most journals allow 100-150 words. Obey this limit now. The main function of theabstract is to communicate the one central and novel contribution, which you just
guredout. You should not mention other literature in the abstract. Like everything else, theabstract must be concrete. Say what you
nd, not what you look for. Here too, don’t write“data are analyzed, theorems are proved, discussion is made..”1
 
Introduction 
The introduction should start with what
you do
in this paper, the major contribution.You must
explain 
that contribution so that people can understand it. Don’t just state yourconclusion: “My results show that the pecking-order theory is rejected.” Give the
fact 
behindthat result. “In a regression of x on y, controlling for z, the coe
cient is q.”The
rst sentence is the hardest. Do not start with philosophy, “Financial economistshave long wondered if markets are e
cient.” Do not start with “The
nance literature haslong been interested in x.” Your paper must be interesting on its own, and not just becauselots of other people wasted space on the subject. Do not start with a long motivation of how important the issue is to public policy. All of this is known to writers as “clearing yourthroat.” It’s a waste of space. Start with your central contribution.Three pages is a good upper limit for the introduction.I don’t write a “roadmap” paragraph: “Section 2 sets out the model, section 3 discussesidenti
cation, section 4 gives the main results, section 5 checks for robustness, section 6concludes.” It seems a waste of space; readers will
gure it out when they get there andI save a paragraph against the editor’s page count. Make your own mind up about thisquestion; but realize it’s not mandatory.
Literature review 
Do not start your introduction with a page and a half of other literature. First, yourreaders are most interested in just
guring out what you do. They can’t start wondering if it’s better than what others have done until they understand what you do. Second, mostreaders do not know the literature. It’s going to be hard enough to explain your paper insimple terms; good luck explaining everyone else’s too.
After 
you’ve explained your contribution, then you can write a brief literature review.Make it a separate section of otherwise set it o
ff 
so people can skip it who aren’t interested.Remember, it will be very hard for people to understand how your paper is di
ff 
erent fromothers’ given that they don’t understand your paper yet, and most of them have not readthe other papers.Be generous in your citations. You do not have to say that everyone else did it all wrongfor your approach and improvements to be interesting.Literature reviews have gotten way out of hand. It is not necessary to cite every singlepaper in the literature or to write a
Journal of Economic Literature 
style review. The mainpoint of the literature review should be to set your paper o
ff 
against the 2 or 3 closestcurrent papers, and to give proper credit to people who deserve priority for things thatmight otherwise seem new in your paper. Some people worry a lot about strategic citations;choosing citations to hint to editors who they should assign as referees and adding loads of citations to make sure referees see themselves. Whatever one thinks of these practices, wecan agree you should get rid of all the
u
ff 
in the
nal version.2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->