Are Leading Papers of Better Quality? Evidence from a Natural Experiment
AbstractLeading papers in a journal’s issue attract, on average, more citations than those that follow. It is, however, difficult to assess whether they are of better quality (as is often suggested), or whether this happens just because they appear first in an issue. We make use of a natural experiment that was carried out by a journal in which papers are randomly ordered in some issues, while this order is not random in others. We show that leading papers in randomly ordered issues also attract more citations, which casts some doubt on whether, in general, leading papers are of higher quality.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles in its series Working Papers ECARES with number 2008_014.
Length: 16 p.
Date of creation: 2008
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published by:
Other versions of this item:
- Tom Coupé & Victor Ginsburgh & Abdul Noury, 2010. "Are leading papers of better quality? Evidence from a natural experiment," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 62(1), pages 1-11, January.
- Tom Coupé & Victor Ginsburgh & Abdul Noury, 2008. "Are leading papers of better quality? Evidence from a natural experiment," Discussion Papers 9, Kyiv School of Economics.
- Tom Coupé & Victor Ginsburgh & Abdul Ghafar Noury, 2009. "Are Leading Papers of Better Quality? Evidence from a Natural Experiment," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/99299, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- NEP-ALL-2008-10-21 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2008-10-21 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-EDU-2008-10-21 (Education)
- NEP-EXP-2008-10-21 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-HPE-2008-10-21 (History & Philosophy of Economics)
- NEP-SOG-2008-10-21 (Sociology of Economics)
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.:
- William J. Moore & Robert J. Newman & Peter J. Sloane & Jeremy D. Steely, . "Productivity Effects of Research Assessment Exercises," Departmental Working Papers 2002-15, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
- Victor A. Ginsburgh & Jan C. van Ours, 2003.
"Expert Opinion and Compensation: Evidence from a Musical Competition,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 289-296, March.
- GINSBURGH, Victor & van OURS, Jan, 2002. "Expert opinion and compensation: evidence from a musical competition," CORE Discussion Papers 2002033, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Victor Ginsburgh & Jan van Ours, 2003. "Expert opinion and compensation: evidence from a musical competition," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/1681, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Ayres, Ian & Vars, Fredrick E, 2000. "Determinants of Citations to Articles in Elite Law Reviews," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 427-50, January.
- Oswald, Andrew J., 2006.
"An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-makers,"
The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS)
744, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- Andrew J. Oswald, 2007. "An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-Makers," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(293), pages 21-31, 02.
- Oswald, Andrew J., 2006. "An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-makers," IZA Discussion Papers 2070, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
Blog mentionsAs found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
- Lead papers are not particularly better
by Economic Logician in Economic Logic on 2009-03-09 12:21:00
RePEc Biblio mentionsAs found on the RePEc Biblio, the curated bibliography for Economics:CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Journée, Michel, 2010. "Generalized power method for sparse principal component analysis," Open Access publications from UniversitÃ© catholique de Louvain info:hdl:2078.1/33456, Université catholique de Louvain.
- Ho Fai Chan & Bruno S. Frey & Jana Gallus & Benno Torgler, 2013.
"Does The John Bates Clark Medal Boost Subsequent Productivity And Citation Success?,"
QuBE Working Papers
004, QUT Business School.
- Ho Fai Chan & Bruno S. Frey & Jana Gallus & Benno Torgler, 2013. "Does The John Bates Clark Medal Boost Subsequent Productivity And Citation Success?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2013-02, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
- Ho Fai Chan & Bruno S. Frey & Jana Gallus & Benno Torgler, 2013. "Does the John Bates Clark Medal boost subsequent productivity and citation success?," ECON - Working Papers 111, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
- Oswald, Andrew J., 2008. "Can We Test for Bias in Scientific Peer-Review?," IZA Discussion Papers 3665, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Benoit Pauwels).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.