UNLV Undergraduate Economics Working Paper Series Molasky Family Department of Economics and Real Estate · Lee Business School
Menu

For Student Authors

How faculty-sponsored UNLV undergraduate research moves from a manuscript to an editorially screened working paper

Working papers are preliminary research outputs. They are editorially screened, are not peer reviewed, and may be revised.

Who may submit

The Series considers original economics and economics-related research authored primarily by current UNLV undergraduate students or completed while the author was enrolled as a UNLV undergraduate.

UNLV undergraduate students from any major may be considered when their work makes a substantive economics-related contribution and has a faculty sponsor.

A paper completed while an author was an undergraduate remains eligible if the student graduates before publication or OAsis deposit processing is complete. The Series does not currently accept submissions from students at other universities.

ECON 495 and other courses

Papers developed in ECON 495 receive priority because ECON 495 is the department's undergraduate capstone research course. Publication is not limited to ECON 495, economics majors, or a single course.

Work from another course, degree program, independent study, or mentored project may be considered when it addresses a substantive economics-related question, was completed primarily by the undergraduate author or authors, has a UNLV faculty sponsor, and satisfies the Series' editorial, ethical, rights, and accessibility requirements.

Faculty sponsorship

Every submission requires a UNLV faculty sponsor. The sponsor helps the student assess whether the manuscript is ready for consideration, confirms that the work fits the Series' scope, initiates contact with the Series, and remains available during screening and revision.

Faculty sponsorship supports the submission process; it does not guarantee acceptance and does not replace the Editorial Board's independent screening and decision.

How to begin

Students should first discuss the paper with the instructor or faculty mentor. If the faculty member agrees that the paper is appropriate for consideration, the faculty sponsor should contact the Series.

The Series does not currently accept unsupported direct submissions from students without a faculty sponsor.

  1. The student asks an instructor or faculty mentor to review the paper's readiness and fit.
  2. The faculty member agrees to serve as sponsor and contacts the Series.
  3. The Series provides the current submission materials and confirms what is still needed.
  4. The student and sponsor submit a complete packet and respond to screening or revision requests.

Submission packet

A complete submission packet includes:

  1. An editable manuscript in Microsoft Word format
  2. The final title
  3. Author names and affiliations
  4. An abstract
  5. Four to six keywords
  6. Faculty sponsor endorsement
  7. Author posting and rights agreement
  8. Conflict-of-interest statement
  9. AI-use disclosure
  10. Research ethics or IRB statement when applicable
  11. Data availability statement
  12. Code availability statement
  13. Third-party material permissions when applicable
  14. Separate author-profile and photograph consent when applicable
  15. ORCID when available

Manuscripts should use the Series template and a consistent author-date reference system. APA 7 is the default style for new submissions unless the Editorial Board approves another established scholarly style.

A biography, photograph, personal profile link, or personal contact information is optional, requires separate consent, and is not a condition of manuscript publication.

Editorial screening

Editorial screening is not peer review, replication, or certification that the paper's methods and conclusions are correct.

  1. Intake and eligibility. The Series confirms undergraduate eligibility, faculty sponsorship, economics-related scope, complete materials, author approval, rights documentation, and any required consent records.
  2. Editorial screening. Editors review the research question, contribution, evidence, methodology, support for the conclusions, citations, disclosures, writing, presentation, and overall research readiness.
  3. Compliance screening. The Series checks the required authorship, originality, rights, conflicts, AI-use, research-ethics, restricted-data, accessibility, data-availability, and code-availability statements.
  4. Editorial decision. Non-conflicted voting editors apply the Series' governance rules and issue one of the decision outcomes listed below.
  5. Production. Accepted work proceeds through final metadata and document review, citation preparation, OAsis coordination, DOI confirmation, paper-page and issue publication, sitemap updates, link checks, and a version log.

Decision outcomes

After screening, the Editorial Board may issue one of five outcomes:

  • Accepted
  • Accepted subject to revisions
  • Revise and resubmit
  • Deferred
  • Declined

An invitation to revise or a deferral is not a guarantee of later acceptance.

Rights and permissions

Authors must confirm that the manuscript is original, all coauthors approve public posting, and they have authority to grant the permissions described in the author posting agreement. Authors must identify and secure permission for copyrighted or third-party text, images, tables, instruments, data, or other material when permission is required.

Item-level rights and licenses may differ. Authors should not assume that public access permits unrestricted reuse. Questions should be raised before the final manuscript is authorized for posting.

Research ethics and restricted data

Authors and faculty sponsors are responsible for determining, in consultation with the UNLV Office of Research Integrity when appropriate, whether a project requires IRB review. Any required approval or determination must be obtained before research activities begin. The Editorial Board cannot provide retroactive approval or substitute its judgment for the IRB.

An applicable public research-ethics statement may use one of these models, but authors must not invent a determination:

  • Not applicable: This study did not involve human participants or identifiable private information.
  • Approved by the UNLV IRB, protocol [number].
  • Determined exempt or not human-subjects research by [office], dated [date].
  • Uses public, deidentified secondary data and did not require IRB review, as confirmed by [appropriate determination if obtained].

Authors must have authority to use and publish their data. Do not submit confidential or personally identifiable data, FERPA-protected records, contract-restricted or non-redistributable licensed data, unlawfully obtained material, credentials, or secrets.

See the UNLV Human Subjects Research and IRB guidance.

AI-use disclosure

AI cannot be an author. Authors remain responsible for every claim, citation, calculation, image, translation, code output, and conclusion in the manuscript. Material AI use must be disclosed. Ordinary spelling or grammar correction does not always require disclosure, but material rewriting, coding, data analysis, translation, literature synthesis, figure generation, or interpretation should be disclosed.

Restricted, confidential, or personally identifiable data must not be uploaded to public AI systems. A disclosure may use this model:

Generative AI disclosure: The authors used [tool and version, if known] for [specific purpose]. All outputs were reviewed and verified by the authors, who take full responsibility for the manuscript, analysis, citations, and conclusions.

Data and code availability

Every paper must include a data availability statement and a code availability statement. Appropriate models include:

  • Data and code are publicly available at a named repository.
  • Code is public, but underlying data are restricted.
  • Materials are available from the author subject to legal or contractual restrictions.
  • Data cannot be shared because of confidentiality or licensing restrictions.
  • No original data or code were created.
  • Not applicable.

Name the repository and provide a stable link when materials are public. The Series does not promise that OAsis accepts datasets or replication packages; supplemental deposits require separate repository confirmation.

Accessibility requirements

Authors must provide an editable source file and prepare the manuscript for accessible publication. Requirements include:

  • Real Microsoft Word heading styles
  • Descriptive link text
  • Alternative text for substantive figures
  • Table header rows
  • No screenshots of tables or equations when usable editable alternatives are available
  • Sufficient color contrast and selectable text
  • Figure and table captions
  • Defined abbreviations
  • A logical reading order
  • An accessible PDF export, with the editable source retained for remediation

Accessibility review may identify revisions needed before publication. To report a barrier in a published paper, use the accessibility contact category.

Publication timeline

Complete, faculty-endorsed submissions typically require approximately four to six weeks for editorial screening, revisions, document preparation, metadata review, and OAsis processing. Rights questions, accessibility remediation, incomplete materials, or substantial revisions may extend the process. This timeline is not a publication guarantee.

Corrections and versions

Minor metadata and presentation errors may be corrected administratively. Substantive revisions, correction notices, restrictions, and withdrawals require editorial approval. A substantive revision must identify its version, date, current status, and what changed; a prior-version link or correction notice is included when warranted and available.

Authors should contact the Series as soon as they discover an error, rights concern, privacy issue, or need for an accessible replacement. See the Series policies for the governing procedures.

Beyond the Working Paper Series

Publication in the Series can help authors share their research, receive a stable public record, and continue developing the manuscript with a faculty mentor. Authors may later consider submitting a substantially revised version to a peer-reviewed journal.

Journal policies differ. Before authorizing public posting, authors should discuss future publication plans with their faculty sponsor and review the prior-publication and working-paper policies of any intended journal.

Students considering submission to Spectra should consult the Spectra editors and their faculty mentor before authorizing public posting in this Series.

Review Spectra's separate journal information

Contact

Students should begin with their instructor or faculty mentor. Faculty sponsors may email the Series about a submission. Include the student's name, working title, course or project context, and a brief explanation of the paper's economics-related contribution; do not email confidential or restricted data.

For corrections, rights, accessibility, privacy, technical, department-office, or OAsis record questions, use the contact directory.

The Series designates the OAsis item record and deposited full text as the permanent repository record for each paper.