IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/umiodp/22019.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Begutachtungsverfahren nach Zahl, Gewichtung und Fehlern der Gutachten

Author

Listed:
  • Dilger, Alexander

Abstract

Begutachtungsverfahren werden analysiert anhand der Zahl der Gutachten, der Entscheidungsregel bei abweichenden Gutachtenempfehlungen und den Annahme- und Ablehnungsfehlern der Gutachten. Begutachtungsverfahren können grundsätzlich strenger oder lockerer sein, was entsprechend zu weniger fehlerhaften Annahmen oder Ablehnungen führt.

Suggested Citation

  • Dilger, Alexander, 2019. "Begutachtungsverfahren nach Zahl, Gewichtung und Fehlern der Gutachten," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 2/2019, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:umiodp:22019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/195772/1/1663192081.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
    2. Dilger, Alexander, 2017. "Zur Stärkung wissenschaftlicher Kritik [On strengthening of academic critique]," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 8/2017, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    3. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
    4. Dilger, Alexander, 2012. "Rigor, wissenschaftliche und praktische Relevanz," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 3/2012, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    5. Juan Miguel Campanario, 1996. "Have referees rejected some of the most‐cited articles of all times?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 47(4), pages 302-310, April.
    6. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dilger, Alexander, 2019. "Ökonomik und Ethik wissenschaftsinterner Gutachten," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 3/2019, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Justus Haucap & Johannes Muck, 2015. "What drives the relevance and reputation of economics journals? An update from a survey among economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 849-877, June.
    2. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2008. "Can incentives for research harm research? A business schools' tale," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1248-1265, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Joao Faria, 2012. "Search and research: the influence of editorial boards on journals’ quality," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 687-702, October.
    5. Sascha Baghestanian & Sergey V. Popov, 2018. "On publication, refereeing and working hard," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 51(4), pages 1419-1459, November.
    6. Azar, Ofer H., 2007. "Behavioral economics and socio-economics journals: A citation-based ranking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 451-462, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Edward P. Swanson & Christopher J. Wolfe & Asghar Zardkoohi, 2007. "Concentration in Publishing at Top†Tier Business Journals: Evidence and Potential Explanations," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1255-1289, December.
    9. Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Radu Vranceanu, 2009. "The ‘Read or Write’ Dilemma in Academic Production: A Transatlantic Perspective," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 53(1), pages 75-84, March.
    10. Moizer, Peter, 2009. "Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 285-304, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Ofer H. Azar, 2006. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 50(1), pages 37-50, March.
    13. Chih, Yao-Yu, 2016. "Social network structure and government provision crowding-out on voluntary contributions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 83-90.
    14. Glenn Ellison, 2011. "Is Peer Review In Decline?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(3), pages 635-657, July.
    15. Damien Besancenot & João Ricardo Faria & Franklin G. Mixon, 2017. "Academic Research and the Strategic Interaction of Scholars and Editors: A Two-Stage Game," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(01), pages 1-16, March.
    16. Robert A. Margo, 2011. "The Economic History of the American Economic Review : A Century's Explosion of Economics Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 9-35, February.
    17. Yuqing Zheng & Harry M. Kaiser, 2016. "Submission Demand In Core Economics Journals: A Panel Study," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 1319-1338, April.
    18. Damien Besancenot & Joao R. Faria & Kim Van Huynh, 2009. "Congestion in academic journals under an impartial selection process," CEPN Working Papers halshs-00382585, HAL.
    19. Louis de Mesnard, 2014. "On the marketization of the academic review process. (VF) Sur la marchandisation du processus de referee des revues académiques," Working Papers CREGO 1141001, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
    20. Christopher Cotton, 2008. "An Application Game with Fees and Time Costs," Working Papers 0904, University of Miami, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:umiodp:22019. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ilmuede.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.