Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Are Leading Papers of Better Quality? Evidence from a Natural Experiment

Contents:

Author Info

  • Tom Coupé
  • Victor Ginsburgh
  • Abdul Ghafar Noury

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.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/99299/1/166.oep-noury.pdf
Download Restriction: no

File URL: https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/99299/2/Re%20Vos%20nouvelles%20publications.txt
Download Restriction: not accessible

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles in its series ULB Institutional Repository with number 2013/99299.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in: Oxford Economic Papers (2009)
Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/99299

Contact details of provider:
Postal: CP135, 50, avenue F.D. Roosevelt, 1050 Bruxelles
Web page: http://difusion.ulb.ac.be
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

References

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.:
as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. Sofronis Clerides & Panos Pashardes & Alexandros Polycarpou, 2006. "Peer Review vs Metric-Based Assessment: Testing for Bias in the RAE Ratings of UK Economics Departments," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics, University of Cyprus Department of Economics 7-2006, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
  3. William J. Moore & Robert J. Newman & Peter J. Sloane & Jeremy D. Steely, . "Productivity Effects of Research Assessment Exercises," Departmental Working Papers, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University 2002-15, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
  4. 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), University of Warwick, Department of Economics 744, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
  5. Ayres, Ian & Vars, Fredrick E, 2000. "Determinants of Citations to Articles in Elite Law Reviews," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 427-50, January.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Blog mentions

As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
  1. Lead papers are not particularly better
    by Economic Logician in Economic Logic on 2009-03-09 12:21:00

RePEc Biblio mentions

As found on the RePEc Biblio, the curated bibliography for Economics:
  1. > Economics Profession > Ranking in Economics > Ranking Articles and Papers
Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  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).
  2. Novarese, Marco & Wilson, Chris M., 2013. "Being in the Right Place: A Natural Field Experiment on List Position and Consumer Choice," MPRA Paper 48074, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  3. Brooks, Chris & Fenton, Evelyn M. & Walker, James T., 2014. "Gender and the evaluation of research," Research Policy, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 990-1001.
  4. 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, Department of Economics - University of Zurich 111, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
  5. Maria Rosaria Carillo & Erasmo Papagni & Alessandro Sapio, 2012. "Do collaborations enhance the high-quality output of scientific institutions? Evidence from the Italian Research Assessment Exercise (2001-2003)," Discussion Papers, CRISEI, University of Naples "Parthenope", Italy 4_2012, CRISEI, University of Naples "Parthenope", Italy.
  6. Carillo, Maria Rosaria & Papagni, Erasmo & Sapio, Alessandro, 2013. "Do collaborations enhance the high-quality output of scientific institutions? Evidence from the Italian Research Assessment Exercise," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-36.

Lists

This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:
  1. Economic Logic blog

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/99299. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Benoit Pauwels).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.