Living in Boston taught me that opposition to housing is nuanced. There were several large projects near us. Imagine constant closures of streets/detours/sidewalks all around. And then, even once the buildings were built: RATS (in caps). Lasted years after buildings were built (and then we moved)

In response to a question I've gotten about organized sessions....yes, it's totally OK to cold email people, even senior people

In my experience, people are generally happy you've thought of them and make it easier for them to submit

If you don't know them: budget time for person to respond

4. Write a good abstract

Be clear on methods, sample, findings, and contribution to the literature. There's a rubric reviewers evaluate abstracts on
--> You have more space than a typical abstract; use it!

Abstracts with results are preferred to abstracts where the results aren't yet known

3. All levels of scholars are welcome

In the past, grad students were given a special session and paired with a senior scholar

Senior scholars, we need you too!

Note that AshEcon has a strong commitment to community and we had a blast at the global health dinner organized by Yunwei Chen 😀

2. Submit to the appropriate section

Selecting two different programs does not double your chances of acceptance; system sends a paper to ONE of programs

We can try and send it to the right person, but things fall through the cracks

Pick wisely!

1. Submit an organized session- there's a higher chance of acceptance

-Main reason why papers don't make the program: its hard for me to find 2 other similar papers to make a coherent session

Please don't have the same authors on each paper, find different people and papers

💯 - we’re all fighting the same battles

Rather than get a subscription for a year, I’d like my papers reviewed in a timely manner

Especially across journals we could set up some system that at least does not punish people who do numerous reviews: sped up review times for those who referee.

Can we try and get creative here?