data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ccdc1/ccdc1049aba01e92be7e1c753d4607efb80720a4" alt="Track changes word perfect"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8f446/8f446d695d57523ffd194f2eb0c7694878aa72f9" alt="track changes word perfect track changes word perfect"
My findings and set up helped (I think they were great, but I'm not biased at all), but I found the right gap in the literature, why that gap mattered, and why my paper was the first to fill in that gap.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8f30f/8f30fdbe78946e797e40a03aa0a9c1d0df8791bd" alt="track changes word perfect track changes word perfect"
The single time I've published in a Top 5 journal, I probably wrote the best introduction I've written so far. They found a question no else could answer that was important and found a way to answer it. Go read a recently published paper in the QJE or AER and most often the introduction simply rocks. If you think your introduction is good, think again. Write an awesome introduction/conclusion. What does matter? Here are the two best investments involving your paper (other than your findings) that influence publication odds: I'm pretty sure you could make word look nearly exactly like latex if you want to.ĭoes it matter? I'd be surprised if you did a latex/word RCT and it matters.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ccdc1/ccdc1049aba01e92be7e1c753d4607efb80720a4" alt="Track changes word perfect"