I have two questions regarding the reporting of scientific results. I was reading the following paper by Grinols and Mustard (2006) which can be downloaded here for free. Their main specification is a two-way fixed effects estimator which I reproduced below:
$$ C_{it} = \alpha + \beta_{i}X_{i} + \gamma_{t}T_{t} + \delta L_{it} + \theta A_{it} + \epsilon_{it} $$
where $C_{it}$ is the crime rate (offenses per 100,000 people) of county $i$ in year $t$, $\beta_{i}$ is the vector of estimated coefficients on the county-level fixed effects that control for unobserved characteristics across counties. The time fixed effect, $T_{t}$, controls for national crime rate trends. $L_{it}$ is a vector of the casino-opening dummy variables.
I included a screen shot of their tabular results in case anyone cannot access the article.
Two questions:
Why is it necessary to indicate that the constant was removed (or not removed)? Reviewers have asked me to do this and I am not sure why. Most models will estimate a global intercept if you included dummies for all units and time periods.
I assume the $F$-test is reported to show that the fixed effects are non-zero (i.e., pooled OLS is biased). Thus, is the $F$-test for the model without the fixed effects the normal $F$-test of "overall" significance?
I do not wish to critique the work of this author. Rather, I am using it to facilitate my own understanding about reporting scientific results and to appease several reviewers of my own work.