Peer Review versus Citations - An Analysis of Best Paper Prizes
AbstractIn this paper, I analyze the ‘best paper’ prizes given by economics and finance journals to the best article published in their journal in a given year. More specifically, I compare the citations received by best paper prize-winning papers to citations received by papers that are awarded runner up prizes and to citations received by non-winning papers. In this way, I evaluate to what extent the prize jury members are able to pick the papers that are ‘best’ in terms of citations. The data show that the paper that gets the ‘best paper’ prize, is rarely the most cited paper; is, in a small majority of cases, cited more than the runner up papers and is, in most cases, cited more than the median paper.
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 Kyiv School of Economics in its series Discussion Papers with number 35.
Date of creation: Jun 2010
Date of revision:
Note: Submitted to Economic Journal
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 13 Yakira Str, 04119 Kyiv
Web page: http://www.kse.org.ua/
More information through EDIRC
peer review; citations; academic quality; performance evaluation;
Other versions of this item:
- Coupé, Tom, 2013. "Peer review versus citations – An analysis of best paper prizes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 295-301.
- A10 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - General
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
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.:
- Daniel S. Hamermesh & Peter Schmidt, 2003. "The Determinants of Econometric Society Fellows Elections," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 399-407, January.
- Broder, Ivy E, 1993. "Professional Achievements and Gender Differences among Academic Economists," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(1), pages 116-27, January.
- Glenn Ellison, 2000.
"Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q-r Theory,"
NBER Working Papers
7805, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Glenn Ellison, 2002. "Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q-r Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 994-1034, October.
- Blank, Rebecca M, 1991. "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1041-67, December.
- Joshua S. Gans & George B. Shepherd, 1994. "How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 165-179, Winter.
- Debackere, Koenraad & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2004. "Using a bibliometric approach to support research policy making: The case of the Flemish BOF-key," Open Access publications from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven urn:hdl:123456789/101483, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
- Valerie Smeets & Frédèric warzynski & Tom Coupé, 2006. "Does the Academic Labor Market Initially Allocate New Graduates Efficiently?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(3), pages 161-172, Summer.
- Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
Blog mentionsAs found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
- Journal editors are poor selectors of best papers
by Economic Logician in Economic Logic on 2011-01-13 15:05:00
RePEc Biblio mentionsAs found on the RePEc Biblio, the curated bibliography for Economics:CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Robert Hofmeister & Matthias Krapf, 2011.
"How Do Editors Select Papers, and How Good are They at Doing It?,"
Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz
2011-37, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
- Hofmeister Robert & Krapf Matthias, 2011. "How Do Editors Select Papers, and How Good are They at Doing It?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, October.
- 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?," CESifo Working Paper Series 4419, CESifo Group Munich.
- 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.
- 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).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Olena Nizalova).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.