|
|
 |
 |
|||||||
 |
|
Submissions | Subscribe | Order Back Issues | Staff | Contact Us | ||||||
|
ILR Review Style Sheet: A Guide for Authors and Typists Index to Guide
What To Include
The Review will not consider any paper under simultaneous review by any other journal or publisher. We require authors, whenever legally possible, to assign the copyright of their accepted manuscripts to the Review. To help ensure that the original research we publish is readily testable, and to provide an incentive for researchers to perform replications of important studies, the ILR Review requires the author(s) of every empirical study accepted for publication to include in the paper a statement either offering to make available to other researchers the data, codebook, and computer programs used to generate the results or explaining why such information cannot be furnished. See the "TITLE" section, below, for an example. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We no longer require hard copy submissions. Submit manuscripts electronically via our website, which can be found by searching for "ILR Review" or by going directly to: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/ilrreview/ Note especially that the version of the paper you upload must be purged of all information identifying you, your co-authors, and your institution(s). Prepare a separate cover note (which you should copy into the "Cover letter" field) providing us with current professional title, address, telephone number, and e-mail address for each author of the manuscript; this cover note will not be visible to referees. Also include in the Cover letter field any acknowledgments (which could tip off reviewers to your identity if they are included in the paper). If you encounter any technical problems, contact our office at ILRR@cornell.edu or (607) 255 3295. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We publish papers of variable length depending on the nature of the study, but there are some de facto upper and lower bounds. Very few of our articles, as published, are less than 8 pages or more than 28 pages in length. In general, the word count for a typical paper, counting all elements--text, tables, footnotes, and references--is approximately 10,000, and the character count (counting spaces) is about 70,000. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please try to observe the guidelines that follow. But first, two notes on sections that often receive the heaviest copy-editing: (1) Typically, the most extensive editorial changes to accepted papers occur in the first 2-3 pages. Concerning abstracts, see the instructions and example below. Introductions should be brief (about three paragraphs); free of technical econometric language; and unlittered with in-text cites and footnotes. (2) In References, include full first names of authors whenever possible, not just initials; and, in article entries, include volume + either number or month. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE, AUTHORS, ABSTRACT, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Provide the article title, authors' names, and abstract in the appropriate, separate fields at the time you upload the paper. Do not include them in the body of the paper itself. (These three elements are automatically combined in a title page that the system adds to the paper; the authors' identity is concealed until such time as the paper is accepted.) In the "Cover Letter" field, provide acknowledgments (with exceptions noted below) and a note stating which data and programs you are willing to make available, on request, to interested researchers. A typical note runs as follows: "A data appendix with additional results, and copies of the computer programs used to generate the results presented in the paper, are available from the first author at [postal address and email]." When the data used are proprietary, provide the names of agencies or persons who can guide other researchers through the procedures for accessing the data. If you created the data set yourself and wish to exploit it further before making it public, specify a date after which the data will be available. Do not include acknowledgments of the editor or referees. Also, do not include a disclaimer stating that errors, or the views expressed, are the author's. We run a blanket statement to that effect on the inside front cover of every issue. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the "abstract" field, provide an abstract of no more than 150 words. The first sentence generally describes the data, method, and purpose. Two or three other sentences state the most important findings, conclusions, and, sometimes, implications. Use only terms that will be understood by a general audience (which includes readers who have little background in statistics). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Provide an a untitled introduction of 3-4 paragraphs. Give brief background and explain how the study differs from previous ones. Do not present a verbal outline of the paper; do not anticipate findings or conclusions. Avoid footnotes and in-text cites. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number the pages of your article, so that text passages can easily be referenced by you, the referees, and the editor. There should be headings, on average, every 2-3 pages. Avoid very long paragraphs. Use in-text ("scientific") citation style. Examples: Using data from Ontario, Thomason (1994:232-33) found a lower rate...
Tables should be on pages at the end of the manuscript. Notes can be either at the foot of the page or on separate pages following the references. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Conclusion is usually no more than two pages long. Briefly state conclusions, with reference to specific findings as necessary; recapitulate how the findings add to or differ from those of previous studies; and, if appropriate, discuss implications or unanswered questions (but avoid a detailed description of "more research needed"). As in the introductory paragraphs, avoid footnotes and in-text cites. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Examples follow. As noted above, provide full first names of authors, please, whenever they are available, and give volume + no. or month (or both) for article entries. Article in a journal:
Blinder, Alan S. 1973. "Wage Discrimination: Reduced Form and Structural Elements." Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Fall), pp. 436-55. Article in a book:
Newspaper article:
Book:
Dissertation:
Unpublished paper:
IRRA proceedings:
Government publication:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Use footnotes only for explanatory notes and citations (such as legal citations) that are not easily accommodated by the "scientific" system of citation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Use substantive table titles, as completely descriptive as possible, and accessible to readers without a background in statistics. Include headings for ALL columns (including the first, descriptive column), in plain English if possible. Use plain English, or sensible abbreviations, in row descriptions as well. We use asterisks to denote statistical significance, as follows: *statistically significant at the .10 level; **at the .05 level; ***at the .01 level. Take numbers to no more than three decimal places unless finer specification is meaningful. Table footnotes should include sources, notes (keyed a, b, c, etc.) explaining cryptic or ambiguous elements, and an explanation of significance levels. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Title, authors, acknowledgments, data availability statement, abstract (provide these in fields separate from the main paper, as directed above): Trends in Earnings Differentials by Gender, 1971-1981 Francine D. Blau and Andrea H. Beller Francine Blau is Professor of Economics and Labor and Industrial Relations and Andrea Beller is Associate Professor of Family Economics, both at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This research was supported by funds from the Research Board of the University of Illinois. The authors thank Thomas Miller, William Darity, and James Smith for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. A data appendix with additional results, and copies of the computer programs used to generate the results presented in the paper, are available from Francine D. Blau at the Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, University of Illinois, 504 East Armory Avenue, Champaign, IL 61820-6297. [abstract] Using data from the Current Population Surveys, the authors examine earnings differentials by gender for 1971 and 1981. Most observers, focusing on the median annual earnings of year-round, full-time workers, have concluded that the earnings differential did not change over that decade. Using a different method to adjust for gender differences in hours and weeks worked, the authors find, on the contrary, that the female-male earnings ratio significantly increased during the 1970s. The results suggest that declining gender role specialization and declining discrimination (as conventionally measured) contributed to the observed trend. Introductory paragraphs, first paragraph of first main section, and conclusion: How did women's earnings fare relative to men's earnings during the 1970s? One source of evidence on this question, the series of data on full-time, year-round workers derived from the Current Population Surveys (CPS), surprisingly indicates no change in women's relative economic position over that period: women's annual earnings were 59 percent of men's in both 1971 and 1981. The picture is complicated, however, by contradictory data from another series derived from the CPS, which shows that the ratio of weekly earnings of full-time female workers to that of full-time male workers rose from 61.7 to 64.6 percent between 1971 and 1981 (Blau and Ferber 1987; U.S. Department of Labor 1980). Of the two series, that on annual earnings has attracted more attention and has puzzled observers. How could women's relative economic standing have stood still in a period that witnessed large increases in women's labor force participation, a decline in occupational segregation by gender, and an impressive array of governmental anti-discrimination laws and regulations? . . . In this paper, we examine the trends in gender differentials over the 1971-81 period and their determinants by means of a more detailed and disaggregated analysis than that contained in earlier work. We use data from the 1972 and 1982 Annual Demographic Files of the CPS for wage and salary workers aged 18-64. Although these data sets unfortunately do not allow us to measure labor force experience, they do provide a rich source of information on the other determinants of wages. At least two features of our analysis set it apart from previous studies. First, we correct the estimated earnings functions for selectivity bias; and second, we estimate the extent to which changes in the degree of occupational segregation by gender contributed to changes in the earnings gap.
Strategy of the Analysis
Conclusion
Our results also indicate that, among whites, relative gains were larger for
young women than for older women. Published data suggest that this pattern has
continued into the 1980s (Blau and Ferber 1987). If the younger women hold on
to this advantage as they age--and our data suggest they may well do so--the relative
earnings of white women will rise substantially in the future as more recent cohorts
with relatively higher earnings replace earlier cohorts.
Home |
Current Issue |
Upcoming Issue |
Articles |
Book Reviews
Submission Guidelines | Subscribe | Order Back Issues | Staff | Contact Us
©2002 School of Industrial and Labor Relations
Cornell University, All Rights Reserved |
|||||||
