The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?
AbstractRecently many editors try to reduce the turnaround times of academic journals. Shorter turnaround times, however, will induce many additional submissions of low-quality papers, increasing significantly the workload of editors and referees, and the number of rejections prior to publication. I suggest several ideas how editors can shorten turnaround times and four ideas how they can still avoid frivolous submissions, thus improving the review process efficiency: higher submission fees; requiring authors to review papers in proportion to their submissions; using differential editorial delay – letting low-quality papers wait more; and banning papers from being submitted after a certain number of rejections.
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 EconWPA in its series General Economics and Teaching with number 0502069.
Length: 30 pages
Date of creation: 20 Feb 2005
Date of revision:
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 30
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://188.8.131.52
Academic publishing; first response times; editorial process; review process; refereeing;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- A1 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics
- A2 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics
- I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education
- J44 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Professional Labor Markets and Occupations
- Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2005-04-16 (All new papers)
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.:
- Azar, Ofer H., 2002.
"The slowdown in first-response times of economics journals: Can it be beneficial?,"
4478, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Ofer H. Azar, 2007. "The Slowdown In First-Response Times Of Economics Journals: Can It Be Beneficial?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 179-187, 01.
- Ofer H. Azar, 2004. "Rejections and the importance of first response times," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 31(3), pages 259-274, March.
- Glenn Ellison, 2002.
"The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 947-993, October.
- Engers, Maxim & Gans, Joshua S, 1998. "Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1341-49, December.
- Juin-jen Chang & Ching-chong Lai, 2001. "Is It Worthwhile to Pay Referees?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 457-463, October.
- 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.
- Thomson, William, 2011.
"A Guide for the Young Economist,"
MIT Press Books,
The MIT Press,
edition 2, volume 1, number 026251589x, December.
- Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Facts and Myths about Refereeing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 153-163, Winter.
- Ofer H. Azar, 2005.
"The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?,"
Southern Economic Journal,
Southern Economic Association, vol. 72(2), pages 482â491, October.
- 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.
- Laband, David N, 1990. "Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics? Preliminary Evidence from Authors," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 105(2), pages 341-52, May.
- Moizer, Peter, 2009. "Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 285-304, February.
- Besancenot, Damien & Huynh, Kim & Vranceanu, Radu, 2010.
"A Matching Model of the Academic Publication Market,"
ESSEC Working Papers
DR 10003, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
- Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Radu Vranceanu, 2011. "A Matching Model of the Academic Publication Market," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 167(4), pages 708-725, December.
- Besancenot, Damien & Huynh, Kim & Vranceanu, Radu, 2011. "A Matching Model of the Academic Publication Market," ESSEC Working Papers WP1104, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
- Radu Vranceanu & Damien Besancenot & Kim Huyn, 2011. "A Matching Model of the Academic Publication Market," Post-Print hal-00592134, HAL.
- Radu Vranceanu & Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh, 2010. "A Matching Model of the Academic Publication Market," Post-Print hal-00554710, HAL.
- Azar, Ofer H., 2008.
"Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 420-435, March.
- Azar, Ofer H., 2002. "Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process," MPRA Paper 4482, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Justus Haucap & Tobias Hartwich & André Uhde, 2005. "Besonderheiten und Wettbewerbsprobleme des Marktes für wissenschaftliche Fachzeitschriften," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 74(3), pages 85-107.
- Ofer H. Azar, 2005.
"The Review Process in Economics: Is it Too Fast?,"
General Economics and Teaching
- Berg, Nathan & Faria, Joao, 2008. "Negatively correlated author seniority and the number of acknowledged people: Name-recognition as a signal of scientific merit?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1234-1247, June.
- repec:hal:wpaper:halshs-00382585 is not listed on IDEAS
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.