A First Lesson in Econometrics
1970; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 78; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1086/259717
ISSN1537-534X
Autores Tópico(s)Economic Theory and Policy
ResumoPrevious articleNext article No AccessMiscellanyA First Lesson in EconometricsJohn J. SiegfriedJohn J. Siegfried Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Political Economy Volume 78, Number 6Nov. - Dec., 1970 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/259717 Views: 48Total views on this site Citations: 96Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1970 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Antonio Sánchez-Boyón Renovación del pensamiento económico-empresarial tras la globalización: Talentism & Happiness Economics, Bajo Palabra , no.2424 (Nov 2020): 293–318.https://doi.org/10.15366/bp.2020.24.015Jason P. Berkowitz, Craig A. Depken, John M. Gandar The Conversion of Money Lines Into Win Probabilities, Journal of Sports Economics 19, no.77 (Mar 2017): 990–1015.https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002517696957Ufuk Akcigit Economic Growth: The Past, the Present, and the Future, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1736–1747.https://doi.org/10.1086/694617Fernando Alvarez Monetary Economics, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1825–1830.https://doi.org/10.1086/694619Stephane Bonhomme and Azeem M. Shaikh Keeping the ECON in Econometrics: (Micro-)Econometrics in the Journal of Political Economy, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1846–1853.https://doi.org/10.1086/694620George M. Constantinides Asset Pricing: Models and Empirical Evidence, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1782–1790.https://doi.org/10.1086/694621Douglas W. Diamond, Anil K. Kashyap, and Raghuram G. Rajan Banking and the Evolving Objectives of Bank Regulation, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1812–1825.https://doi.org/10.1086/694622Eugene F. Fama Finance at the University of Chicago, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1790–1799.https://doi.org/10.1086/694623David W. Galenson Economic History, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1747–1752.https://doi.org/10.1086/694624Lars Peter Hansen Time-Series Econometrics in Macroeconomics and Finance, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1774–1782.https://doi.org/10.1086/694625James J. Heckman Chicago Labor Economics, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1840–1845.https://doi.org/10.1086/694626Ali Hortaçsu Auctions in the Journal of Political Economy, 1894–2017, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1915–1920.https://doi.org/10.1086/694627Emir Kamenica Information Economics, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1885–1890.https://doi.org/10.1086/694628Greg Kaplan Inequality, Heterogeneity, and Consumption in the Journal of Political Economy, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1767–1774.https://doi.org/10.1086/694629Steven D. Levitt The Economics of Crime, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1920–1925.https://doi.org/10.1086/694630John List Experimental Economics in the Journal of Political Economy, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1925–1930.https://doi.org/10.1086/694631Robert E. Lucas Jr. Memories of Friedman and Patinkin, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1831–1834.https://doi.org/10.1086/694632Magne Mogstad The Human Capital Approach to Intergenerational Mobility, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1862–1868.https://doi.org/10.1086/694633Roger Myerson Political Economics in the Journal of Political Economy: Six Landmark Papers, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1752–1756.https://doi.org/10.1086/694634Canice Prendergast Agency Issues, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1878–1884.https://doi.org/10.1086/694635Philip J. Reny Assignment Problems, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1903–1914.https://doi.org/10.1086/694636Robert Shimer Labor Markets, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1834–1840.https://doi.org/10.1086/694637Hugo F. Sonnenschein Chicago and the Origins of Modern General Equilibrium, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1728–1736.https://doi.org/10.1086/694638Nancy L. Stokey Aggregative Fiscal Policy, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1756–1761.https://doi.org/10.1086/694639Richard H. Thaler Behavioral Economics, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1799–1805.https://doi.org/10.1086/694640Robert H. Topel Health Economics: A Selective Historical Review for the 125th Anniversary of the Journal of Political Economy, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1868–1878.https://doi.org/10.1086/694641Harald Uhlig Business Cycles and International Trade, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1761–1766.https://doi.org/10.1086/694642Robert Vishny and Luigi Zingales Corporate Finance, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1805–1812.https://doi.org/10.1086/694643Michael Greenstone The Continuing Impact of Sherwin Rosen’s “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition”, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1891–1902.https://doi.org/10.1086/694645Derek Neal Life Cycle Wage Dynamics and Labor Mobility, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1853–1862.https://doi.org/10.1086/694690John List and Harald Uhlig Introduction, Journal of Political Economy 125, no.66 (Dec 2017): 1723–1727.https://doi.org/10.1086/694751Jason P. Berkowitz, Craig A. Depken, John Gandar Estimating Subjective Win Probabilities from Money Lines, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2015).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2658335DAMIEN S. ELDRIDGE A COMMENT ON SIEGFRIED'S FIRST LESSON IN ECONOMETRICS, Economic Inquiry 52, no.11 (Oct 2013): 503–504.https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12041Damien Sean Eldridge A Comment on Siegfried's First Lesson in Econometrics, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2013).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2253103Takeshi Takama, John Preston Forecasting the effects of road user charge by stochastic agent-based modelling, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42, no.44 (May 2008): 738–749.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2008.01.020Margaret A. Ray The lighter side of the dismal science: The humor of economics, The Social Science Journal 28, no.22 (Dec 2019): 227–242.https://doi.org/10.1016/0362-3319(91)90006-PDouglas P. Peters, Stephen J. Ceci Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 187–195.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011183Robert K. Adair A physics editor comments on Peters and Ceci's peer-review study, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 196–196.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011195J. Scott Armstrong Barriers to scientific contributions: The author's formula, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 197–199.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011201John J. Bartko The fate of published articles, submitted again, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 199–199.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011213Donald deB. Beaver On the failure to detect previously published research, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 199–200.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011225Cyril Belshaw Peer review and the Current Anthropology experience, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 200–201.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011237H. Russell Bernard Computer-assisted referee selection as a means of reducing potential editorial bias, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 202–202.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011249Janice M. Beyer Explaining an unsurprising demonstration: High rejection rates and scarcity of space, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 202–203.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011250Marian Blissett Peer review and the structure of knowledge, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 203–204.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011262Daryl E. Chubin Reforming peer review: From recycling to reflexivity, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 204–204.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011274Domenic V. Cicchetti On peer review: “We have met the enemy and he is us”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 205–205.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011286Andrew M. Colman Manuscript evaluation by journal referees and editors: Randomness or bias?, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 205–206.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011298John D. Cone Criterion problems in journal review practices, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 206–207.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011304Rick Crandall Editorial responsibilities in manuscript review, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 207–208.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011316Lois DeBakey Authorship and manuscript reviewing: The risk of bias, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 208–209.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011328Douglas Lee Eckberg Theoretical implications of failure to detect prepublished submissions, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 209–210.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0001133XJoseph L. Fleiss Deception in the study of the peer-review process, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 210–211.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011341Russell G. Geen Review bias: Positive or negative, good or bad?, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 211–211.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011353Norval D. Glenn The journal article review process as a game of chance, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 211–212.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011365Leonard D. Goodstein When will the editors start to edit?, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 212–213.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011377M. D. Gordon Cognitive relativism and peer-review bias, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 213–213.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011389R. A. Gordon Optional published refereeing, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 213–214.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011390Belver C. Griffith Judging document content versus social functions of refereeing: Possible and impossible tasks, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 214–215.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011407James Hartley Scientific communication: So where do we go from here?, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 215–216.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011419Robert Hogan The insufficiencies of methodological inadequacy, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 216–216.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011420William M. Honig Peer review in the physical sciences: An editor's view, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 216–217.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011432David F. Horrobin Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 217–218.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011444Michael J. A. Howe Peer reviewing: Improve or be rejected, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 218–219.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011456David Lazarus Interreferee agreement and acceptance rates in physics, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 219–219.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011468Richard T. Louttit Peer review: Prediction of the future or judgment of the past?, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 219–220.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0001147XMichael J. Mahoney Publication, politics, and scientific progress, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 220–221.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011481Clyde Manwell, C. M. Ann Baker Reform peer review: The Peters and Ceci study in the context of other current studies of scientific evaluation, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 221–225.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011493Jason Millman Making the plausible implausible: A favorable review of Peters and Ceci's target article, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 225–226.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0001150XBurton Mindick When we practice to deceive: The ethics of a metascientific inquiry, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 226–227.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011511Ian I. Mitroff Designing peer review for the subjective as well as the objective side of science, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 227–228.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011523Michael J. Moravcsik Rejecting published work: It couldn't happen in physics! (or could it?), Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 228–229.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011535Katherine Nelson Reliability, bias, or quality: What is the issue?, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 229–229.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011547Ray Over What is the source of bias in peer review?, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 229–230.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011559David S. Palermo Biases, decisions and auctorial rebuttal in the peer-review process, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 230–231.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011560Daniel Perlman Reviewer “bias”: Do Peters and Ceci protest too much?, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 231–232.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011572Richard M. Perloff, Robert Perloff Improving research on and policies for peer-review practices, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 232–233.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011584Alan L. Porter 2004: A scenario of peer review in the future, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 233–234.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011596Stanley Presser Reviewer reliability: Confusing random error with systematic error or bias, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 234–235.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011602Robert Rosenthal Reliability and bias in peer-review practices, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 235–236.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011614Chuck Ross Rejecting published work: Similar fate for fiction, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 236–236.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011626Donald B. Rubin Rejection, rebuttal, revision: Some flexible features of peer review, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 236–237.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011638Sandra Scarr Anosmic peer review: A rose by another name is evidently not a rose, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 237–238.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0001164XWilliam A. Scott Referee report on an earlier draft of Peters and Ceci's target article, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 238–238.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011651Sol Tax, Robert A. Rubinstein Responsibility in reviewing and research, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 238–240.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011663Garth J. Thomas Perhaps it was right to reject the resubmitted manuscripts, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 240–240.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011675Murray J. White Some procedural obscurities in Peters and Ceci's peer-review study, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 241–241.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011687Grover J. Whitehurst The quandary of manuscript reviewing, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 241–242.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011699William A. Wilson Research on peer-review practices: Problems of interpretation, application, and propriety, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 242–243.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011705Joseph C. Witt, Michael J. Hannafin Experimenter and reviewer bias, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 243–244.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011717Rosalyn S. Yalow Competency testing for reviewers and editors, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 244–245.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011729David Zeaman Reliability and validity of peer review, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 245–245.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011730John Ziman Bias, incompetence, or bad management?, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 245–246.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011742Douglas P. Peters, Stephen J. Ceci Peer-review research: Objections and obligations, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5, no.22 (Feb 2010): 246–255.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011754J. Scott Armstrong Research on scientific journals: Implications for editors and authors, Journal of Forecasting 1, no.11 (Jan 1982): 83–104.https://doi.org/10.1002/for.3980010109D. B. JACK, M. R. GREGG A good read, Nature 293, no.58345834 (Oct 1981): 602–602.https://doi.org/10.1038/293602d0
Referência(s)