This is a great piece discussing some of the problems plaguing our profession. I would add one small thought: Because our individual research production function depends heavily on the quality of our colleagues, clustering of dpts seems like a natural equilibrium. 1/ https://twitter.com/bradchattergoon/status/1345999685761298433

Everything else equal, working at Harvard makes you a better economist because you receive input and stimulation by other brilliant minds. But given any top department's benefit from 'control', there are also incentives for inbreeding. 2/

For outsiders, who have imperfect knowledge of their own work's quality, it is often hard to disentangle merit from favoritism. This has created an unhealthy suspicion in many colleagues outside the top that the system is 'rigged'. 3/

This may be a correct observation in some, but clearly not in most cases. The average paper coming out of Harvard is better than the average paper coming out of an unknown, small university, but clearly not every paper is. 4/

I've heard things like "If you don't publish your paper top 5, it means you're not good enough." or "I don't have the network to publish top 5." These extreme attitudes, sometimes surely built on motivated beliefs, are not helpful if we want inclusion. 5/

We need to fix this. But how? First, leadership of professional associations need to be more reflective of their constituents. @JakeVigdor has tweeted about this excessively. 6/

Second, we need better organizational structures for the top 5 journals. 'Ownership' by departments is not beneficial to avoiding favoritism. Some journals (such as @AEAjournals or @RevEconStud) put a lot of effort in avoiding conflicts of interest. Others should follow. 7/

Editors should hail from a larger variety of departments. Most importantly: As journals are not really 'printed' anymore, the concept of page numbers has become almost irrelevant. At current rej rates, the top 5 journals need to expand their page numbers. 8/

Some journals are trying to step up (such as @JEEA_News, @ImranRasul3) and fill the gap for top 5 worthy papers without a top 5 journal home. We all need to change our lexicographic thinking of journal tiers. 9/

I know that not all these suggestions are concrete, applicable or realistic. But I do know that I worry about the overly competitive spirit in parts of the profession. Don't forget: we're in this to create knowledge, not to earn another badge. end/