This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Are leading papers of better quality? Evidence from a natural experiment

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Tom Coupé () (Kyiv School of Economics and Kyiv Economics Institute)
Victor Ginsburgh (ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles and CORE, Université Catholique de Louvain)
Abdul Noury (CORE, Université Catholique de Louvain)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Leading 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 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 page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.kse.org.ua/RePEc/pdf/KSE_dp9.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function: First version, Jun 2008
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Kyiv School of Economics in its series Discussion Papers with number 9.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Jun 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:kse:dpaper:9

Note: Under review in Oxford Economic Papers
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 13 Yakira Str, 04119 Kyiv
Phone: (38-044)492-8012
Fax: (38-044)492-8011
Email:
Web page: http://www.kse.org.ua/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Andriy Zapechelnyuk).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: This item is featured on the following reading lists:
  1. Economic Logic blog
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.)
  1. Oswald, Andrew J., 2008. "Can We Test for Bias in Scientific Peer-Review?," IZA Discussion Papers 3665, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS was launched in September 1997.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-22.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.