Abstract

In this essay, we review the history of efforts to convince the editors of professional journals to require that authors store data and programs in an archive accessible to readers of the journal. We note that some progress has been made since the gloomy assessment of William Dewald, Jerry Thursby and Richard Anderson in the American Economic Review some twenty years ago. Yet, a great deal more must be done before empirical economics ceases to be the “ dismal science ” when judged by the replicability of published results. With very few exceptions, simple respect for the scientific method has never been a sufficient reason for journal editors to ensure the replicability of the results that they publish. Therefore, we enumerate the costs and benefits of mandatory archives, and argue that the benefits far exceed the costs. Paper prepared for presentation at the American Economic Association meeting, Philadelphia PA, January 9, 2005. Views expressed herein are solely those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis or the Federal Reserve System, New York University,

Citations