We study how author connections influence paper outcomes at the Journal of Human Resources. Authors who attended the same PhD program, worked with, affiliate with the same National Bureau of Economic Research program(s), or are closely linked via coauthorship networks as the handling editor are more likely to avoid a desk rejection. Reviewer recommendations are similarly influenced by PhD and employment matches. Matching on signals of ability—such as top five publishing, attending a high-ranked PhD program, or working in a high-ranked department—also impact peer review decisions. We find some evidence that published papers with greater connectivity subsequently receive fewer citations.

In primary and secondary education, measures of teacher quality are often based on contemporaneous student performance on standardized achievement tests. In the postsecondary environment, scores on student evaluations of professors are typically used to measure teaching quality. We possess unique data that allow us to measure relative student performance in mandatory follow‐on classes. We compare metrics that capture these three different notions of instructional quality and present evidence that professors who excel at promoting contemporaneous student achievement teach in ways that improve their student evaluations but harm the follow‐on achievement of their students in more advanced classes.