期刊名称：INDUSTRIAL & LABOR RELATIONS REVIEW
|
ISSN： | 0019-7939
|
|
出版频率： | Quarterly
|
|
出版社： | INDUSTRIAL LABOR RELAT REV, CORNELL UNIV, ITHACA, USA, NY, 14851-0952
|
|
期刊网址： | http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/ilrreview/
|
|
影响因子： |
1.141 (2012年)
1(2011年)
|
| 主题范畴： | INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR |
 期刊简介(About the journal)
投稿须知(Instructions to Authors)
编辑部信息(Editorial Board)
About the journal
Issued quarterly since October 1947, the Industrial and Labor Relations Review is a leading interdisciplinary journal publishing original research on all aspects of the employment relationship, including collective bargaining, labor markets, labor law, social security and protective labor legislation, management and personnel, human resources, worker participation, workplace health and safety, organizational behavior, comparative industrial relations, and labor history. The journal also publishes reviews of some 50 books per year.
The site you are at offers an index of all articles and book reviews published since 1947, as well as abstracts of all articles . At the "All Articles" and "All Book Reviews" pages, visitors can search on titles and authors. Use this site, too, to learn about upcoming articles and book reviews.
Our other main site, Digital Commons, offers full text of articles and book reviews published since April 2003. Nonsubscribers can access all the book reviews in this April '03+ archive, as well as the older articles. Subscribers can, in addition, access recent and current articles, by following a simple registration procedure. To jump to Digital Commons, click on "Full Text" in the left-hand bar, above.
Instructions to Authors
CONDITIONS
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.
Authors of empirical papers accepted for publication will be asked, in most cases, to make their data and programs available to other researchers.
SUBMISSION
Submit four clearly legible manuscript copies. Because of the high cost of postage, we cannot return manuscripts.
All manuscripts submitted should be sent to:
Editor
Industrial and Labor Relations Review
158 Ives Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-3901.
Please provide us with current professional title, address, telephone number, and e-mail address, if available, for each author of the manuscript.
LENGTH
Manuscripts should be approximately 25 pages long, counting each double-spaced page of notes, references, and appendices as a half-page. By double-spaced is meant full double-spacing (not "1-1/2 spacing") of lines with normal-size (12-point) type, with one-inch margins on all sides.
WHAT TO INCLUDE
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
(Page 1): Give the paper's title and author(s), in all caps.
In a paragraph or two, provide the title and affiliation of each author; acknowledgments (with exceptions noted below); and a note stating which data and programs you are willing to make available, on request, to interested researchers.
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.
ABSTRACT
(Page 2): Provide an abstract of no more than 150 words--the same limit that is observed by the Journal of Economic Literature in its Web-based compilations of abstracts. 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).
OPENING TEXT
(Page 3): No authors' names here. Consistent with our double-blind policy, we try to keep authors' names from referees.
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.
BODY OF PAPER
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...
- Large unions held the highest number of elections (Bils and Fern 1998).
(For other examples, see the sample text below.) Whenever the quote or fact or argument you are borrowing appears on specific pages in the source, cite those pages rather than the entire source.
Tables are not adjacent to text, but on separate pages at the end of the manuscript.
Notes can be either at the foot of the page or on separate pages following the references.
CONCLUSION
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.
REFERENCES
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:
Be sure to include volume, number, month or season, and pages:
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:
Blau, Francine D. 1984. "Occupational Segregation and Labor Market Discrimination." In Barbara F. Reskin, ed., Sex Segregation in the Workplace: Trends, Explanations, Remedies. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, pp. 117-43.
Newspaper article:
Pear, Robert. 1987. "Women Reduce Lag in Earnings but Disparities with Men Remain." New York Times, September 4, p. A1.
Book:
Freeman, Richard B., and James L. Medoff. 1984. What Do Unions Do? New York: Basic Books.
Dissertation:
Ellis, Martin G. 1984. "Men's and Women's Earnings in Manufacturing, 1939-1979." Diss., University of Illinois.
Unpublished paper:
Yoruba, Baswan. 1990. "Characteristics of Women with Higher-Paying Jobs in White-Collar Occupations." Unpublished paper, University of Pennsylvania.
IRRA proceedings:
Blau, Francine D., and Marianne A. Ferber. 1987. "Women's Progress in the Labor Market: Should We Rest on Our Laurels?" Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meetings (New Orleans, Dec. 28-30, 1986). Madison, Wis.: Industrial Relations Research Association, pp. 70-76.
Government publication:
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1983. Census of the Population: 1980. Characteristics of the Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics, United States Summary. Report PC80-1-C1. Washington, D.C.: GPO.
FOOTNOTES
Use footnotes only for explanatory notes and citations (such as legal citations) that are not easily accommodated by the "scientific" system of citation.
TABLES
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.
SAMPLE TEXT
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
To gain a more accurate picture of trends in labor market treatment of women relative to men over this period, we consider trends in earnings ratios after adjustment for gender differences in selectivity bias, time input (hours and weeks worked), and other factors determining wages. Then, in order to identify specific influences that have worked to increase or reduce women's earnings relative to men's, we apply a standard technique (see, for example, Blinder 1973:438-41) to decompose the changes in earnings differentials over the period. . . .
Conclusion
Our two primary goals in this study have been to clarify the trends in relative earnings by gender over the 1971 to 1981 period and to understand the reasons for those trends. Our first major finding is that the increase in women's earnings relative to men's over that decade was greater than has been recognized. An analysis of wage offers results in substantially higher estimates of the earnings gains of white women relative to white men than does a more conventional analysis of observed wages (that is, an analysis uncorrected for selectivity bias)--specifically, an increase of 23 percent, as opposed to 15 percent, in the female-male earnings ratio. . . .
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.
Editorial Board
Editor
Tove Hammer
thh2@cornell.edu
(607) 255-5496
Subject matter considered for publication
Associate Editors
George Boyer
grb3@cornell.edu
(607) 275-2755
Daniel S. Hamermesh
hamermes@eco.utexas.edu
(512) 475-8526
Lawrence Kahn
lmk12@cornell.edu
(607) 255-0510
Harry Katz
hck2@cornell.edu
(607) 255-3230
Editorial Board
Katharine Abraham, University of Maryland
Rosemary Batt, Cornell University
John W. Budd, University of Minnesota
Peter H. Cappelli, University of Pennsylvania
John Delaney, Michigan State University
Ronald G. Ehrenberg, Cornell University
Steven Frenkel, University of New South Wales
Barry A. Gerhart, University of Wisconsin
Michael E. Gordon, Rutgers University
Barry T. Hirsch, Trinity University, San Antonio
Robert M. Hutchens, Cornell University
Thomas A. Kochan, M.I.T.
Sarosh Kuruvilla, Cornell University
David Lewin, U.C.L.A.
Olivia S. Mitchell, University of Pennsylvania
Walter Y. Oi, University of Rochester
Craig A. Olson, University of Wisconsin
Paul Osterman, M.I.T.
Managing Editor
Brian Keeling
blk5@cornell.edu or ilrr@cornell.edu
(607) 255-2732
Style sheet, contents of future issues, advertising, editing, production, promotions, budget
Administrative Assistant
Barbara Lanning
bfl2@cornell.edu or ilrr@cornell.edu,
(607) 255-3295
Manuscript evaluations, article submission, book reviews, subscriptions, invoices
| 
字顺( Alphabetical List of Journals):
返回页首 