Four issues concerning the quality of scientific economics papers are addressed. First, the ex-ante procedure of computing the average impact of economic papers are validated by comparing its results with the ex post values. Second, an estimator of papers normalized impact is calibrated. Third, the ranking variability of journals is computed using a bootstrap procedure. Fourth, the statistical hypothesis that journals' ranking did not change over the time interval between 1980 and 2000 is tested. It is concluded that this hypothesis is rejected only for the Quarterly Journal of Economics and Econometrica , which saw their citation impact improved.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)