World Bank Policy Research Working Papers New Common App Essay Questions 2013
There are formal working paper series such as NBER, BREAD, IZA, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, etc.With the proliferation of the internet, however, people don’t even need to use these formal working paper series.After one more revise and resubmit, the paper is now forthcoming, and the final version (more or less) can be found . Our findings in the March 2010 version suggested that CCTs that had regular school attendance as a requirement to receive cash transfers did NOT improve school enrollment over and above cash transfers with no strings attached. The difference was NOT that we had longer-term data: if we use self-reported enrollment to examine one-year or two-year impacts, the results are the same (see Table III, panel A in the paper linked above).Rather, the difference was caused by the kind of data that we were using: we supplemented self-reports with administrative data, enrollment data collected from schools, monthly attendance ledgers, and independent achievement tests in math and languages.The newer version, other than for a few dedicated followers of the topic or the author, will not be read by many.They will cling to their beliefs based on the first draft: first impressions matter.They will happily accept the preliminary findings of the working paper and go on to cite it for a long time (believe me, well past the updated versions of the working paper and even the eventual journal publication).
We followed this advice and , which now presented two-year impacts using enrollment and attendance data collected from schools, in addition to independent achievement tests, in December 2010 and resubmitted it to the same journal, again simultaneously.Findings, and particularly interpretations, change between the working paper phase and the published version of a paper: if they didn’t, then we would not need peer-reviewed journals. (BTW, the promise that the blogosphere would serve as the great source where we get many good comments on our working papers simply has not come through.Useful comments require time and careful reading, which is not how stuff online is consumed.) Now, back to the point about first impressions: When a new working paper comes out, especially one that might be awaited (like the first randomized experiment on microfinance), people rush to read it (or, rather, skim it).Even when I am specifically looking for more recent versions of a paper, I am usually unable to find the most recent one with a simple Google search (Try it , which came out a couple of weeks ago first appeared in 2006 and was updated in 2010.The authors likely did not intend to publish the findings until now (they were collecting Biomarker data on STIs until recently, but kept the public informed on short-term and medium-term impacts of te interventions on schooling and fertility). There is another problem: people who are invested in a particular finding will find it easier to take away a message that confirms their prior beliefs from a working paper.You can simply post your brand new paper on your website and voilà, you have a working paper: put that into your CV!Journals are giving up double-blind refereeing () because it is too easy to use search engines to find the working paper version (it’s not at all clear that this is good.By the time your paper is published, it is a pretty good paper – your little masterpiece.The publication will cause an uptick in downloads, but still, for many, all they’ll remember is the sweatshirt, and not the sweat that went into the masterpiece. But, unless we can alert everyone that there is a new version of a paper (AND make them read it and understand the changes since the first draft), this is of little use.In March 2010, we put out a working paper on the role of conditionalities in cash transfer programs, which we also simultaneously submitted to a journal.The paper was reporting one-year effects of an intervention using self-reported data on school participation.