How Do Editors Select Papers, and How Good are They at Doing It?
Using data on the B.E. Journals that rank articles into four quality tiers, this paper examines the accuracy of the research evaluation process in economics. We find that submissions by authors with strong publication records and authors affiliated with highly-ranked institutions are significantly more likely to be published in higher tiers. Citation success as measured by RePEc statistics also depends heavily on the overall research records of the authors. Finally and most importantly, we measure how successful the B.E. Journals’ editors and their reviewers have been at assigning articles to quality tiers. While, on average, they are able to distinguish more influential from less influential manuscripts, we also observe many assignments that are not compatible with the belief that research quality is reflected by the number of citations.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 11 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.degruyter.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bejeap|
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.:
- Christian Zimmermann, 2013.
"Academic Rankings with RePEc,"
MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 1(3), pages 249-280, December.
- Benjamin F. Jones, 2005.
"The burden of knowledge and the ‘death of the Renaissance man’: Is innovation getting harder?,"
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
- Benjamin F. Jones, 2009. "The Burden of Knowledge and the "Death of the Renaissance Man": Is Innovation Getting Harder?," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 76(1), pages 283-317.
- Benjamin F. Jones, 2005. "The Burden of Knowledge and the 'Death of the Renaissance Man': Is Innovation Getting Harder?," NBER Working Papers 11360, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Joao Santos Silva & Silvana Tenreyro, 2005.
"The Log of Gravity,"
CEP Discussion Papers
dp0701, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
- Joao Santos Silva & Silvana Tenreyro, 2005. "The log of gravity," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 3744, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Santos Silva, J.M.C & Tenreyro, Silvana, 2005. "The Log of Gravity," CEPR Discussion Papers 5311, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Wall Howard J, 2009. "Don't Get Skewed Over by Journal Rankings," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, August.
- Heinrich W. Ursprung & Markus Zimmer, 2007. "Who is the "Platz-Hirsch" of the German Economics Profession? A Citation Analysis," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Department of Statistics and Economics, vol. 227(2), pages 187-208, April.
- Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Facts and Myths about Refereeing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 153-163, Winter.
- Gourieroux, Christian & Monfort, Alain & Trognon, Alain, 1984.
"Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Applications to Poisson Models,"
Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 701-20, May.
- Gourieroux Christian & Monfort Alain & Trognon A, 1982. "Pseudo maximum lilelihood methods : applications to poisson models," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Couverture Orange) 8203, CEPREMAP.
- Tom Coupe, 2010.
"Peer Review versus Citations - An Analysis of Best Paper Prizes,"
35, Kyiv School of Economics.
- Coupé, Tom, 2013. "Peer review versus citations – An analysis of best paper prizes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 295-301.
- David N. Laband & Robert D. Tollison, 2003. "Dry Holes in Economic Research," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 161-173, 05.
- De Long, J Bradford & Lang, Kevin, 1992.
"Are All Economic Hypotheses False?,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(6), pages 1257-72, December.
- Laband, David N & Piette, Michael J, 1994. "Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(1), pages 194-203, February.
- Hamermesh, Daniel S. & Pfann, Gerard Antonie, 2009.
"Markets for Reputation: Evidence on Quality and Quantity in Academe,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
7603, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Daniel S. Hamermesh & Gerard A. Pfann, 2009. "Markets for Reputation: Evidence on Quality and Quantity in Academe," NBER Working Papers 15527, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Hamermesh, Daniel S. & Pfann, Gerard A., 2009. "Markets for Reputation: Evidence on Quality and Quantity in Academe," IZA Discussion Papers 4610, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- 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.
- Kenneth J. Arrow & B. Douglas Bernheim & Martin S. Feldstein & Daniel L. McFadden & James M. Poterba & Robert M. Solow, 2011. "100 Years of the American Economic Review : The Top 20 Articles," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 1-8, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:bejeap:v:11:y:2011:i:1:n:64. 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: (Peter Golla)
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.