class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide .title[ # How to publish in top journals ] .subtitle[ ## Some tricks of the trade that I picked up ] .author[ ### Merlin Schaeffer ] .date[ ### 2023-03-20 ] --- class: clear # .font90[General interest, empirical rigor, & innovative claim] .push-left[ <img src="./media/ASR1a.png" width="100%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> ] .push-right[ <img src="./media/ASR1b.png" width="100%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> ] --- class: clear # .font90[General interest, empirical rigor, & innovative claim] <img src="./media/AJS1.png" width="50%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> --- # The sweet spot .left-column[ .alert[Why is this interesting,<br> why do we care?] ] .right-column[ <img src="Publish-top_files/figure-html/Venn4-1.gif" width="70%" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> ] --- class: clear .push-left[ .center[**Ethno-Religious Minority Infrastructures:** *Why Do Some Immigrant Minorities Build Dense Organizational Infrastructures While Others Do not?*] Why do some immigrant minorities establish dense ethno-religious infrastructures, while others do not come together as organized communities? This question links a central topic of ethnicity scholarship with an important tradition of urban sociological research on immigrant enclaves. The authors combine arguments about internal demand, within-ethnic heterogeneity, and socio-economic resources with a regard for external constraints imposed by anti-minority mobilization to identify the conditions under which nominal co-ethnicity leads to formal minority organization. To test their framework, the authors draw on a novel geo-coded dataset of 25,117 ethnic businesses and ethno-religious organizations catering to 61 immigrant minorities across Germany. The article shows that there is significant variation in the density of organizational infrastructures among minority groups and suggests that the initial cultural distance from mainstream society plays a significant role in the creation and sustainability of ethno-religious infrastructures. ] .push-right[ .center[**The refugee mobility puzzle:** *Why do refugees move to cities with high unemployment rates once residence restrictions are lifted?*] Social science research demonstrates that dispersal policies and restrictions on the freedom of residence have inhibited refugees’ socio-economic integration. The dominant explanation is that such policies prevent refugees from moving to places where they can employ their skills most fruitfully. However, previous studies provide little evidence that refugees move to places with good employment prospects. The combination of negative effects of residence restrictions and emerging evidence of disadvantaging secondary migration forms the ‘refugee mobility puzzle’. The authors draw on the IAB-BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees, track the location of more than 2,500 refugee respondents, and estimate discrete choice models across all German counties and postcodes. Their results suggest that areas which appear deprived tend to offer important resources to refugees in terms of co-ethnic support networks, housing, and better employment opportunities in more abundant small companies. ] --- # Improvements **The Problem with the refugee mobility puzzle:** - *General interest*: Need to understand three sentences on prior research on refugees to understand the research question. - *Empirical rigor*: IAB-SOEP based discrete choice models are nice, but nothing outstanding in terms of rigor. - *Innovative claim*: Alejandro Portes and others made the point that immigrants can thrive in deprived areas already in the 70s. **Changes to both abstracts** - Have claim as subtitle, and the research question rather as leading question in the intro.