IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bejeap/v15y2015i2p865-889n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Model of the Academic Review Process with Informed Authors

Author

Listed:
  • Azar Ofer H.

    () (Department of Business Administration, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel)

Abstract

Research on the academic review process may help to improve research productivity. The article presents a model of the review process in a top journal, in which authors know their paper’s quality whereas referees obtain a noisy signal about quality. Increased signal noisiness, lower submission costs and more published papers all reduce the average quality of published papers in the journal. The model allows analyzing how the submission cost, the accuracy of referees and the number of published papers affect additional equilibrium characteristics. Implications of the model for journal policies are also discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Azar Ofer H., 2015. "A Model of the Academic Review Process with Informed Authors," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 865-889, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bejeap:v:15:y:2015:i:2:p:865-889:n:2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bejeap.2015.15.issue-2/bejeap-2013-0177/bejeap-2013-0177.xml?format=INT
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Heintzelman Martin & Nocetti Diego, 2009. "Where Should we Submit our Manuscript? An Analysis of Journal Submission Strategies," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-28, September.
    3. Marshall H. Medoff, 2003. "Editorial Favoritism in Economics?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 70(2), pages 425-434, October.
    4. 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, January.
    5. Sauer, Raymond D, 1988. "Estimates of the Returns to Quality and Coauthorship in Economic Academia," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(4), pages 855-866, August.
    6. Theodore C. Bergstrom, 2001. "Free Labour for Costly Journals?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 183-198, Fall.
    7. David N. Laband, 1990. "Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 105(2), pages 341-352.
    8. Derek Leslie, 2005. "Are Delays in Academic Publishing Necessary?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 407-413, March.
    9. Glenn Ellison, 2011. "Is Peer Review In Decline?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(3), pages 635-657, July.
    10. Bruno S. Frey & Reiner Eichenberger & René L. Frey, 2009. "Editorial Ruminations: Publishing Kyklos," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 151-160, April.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. repec:spr:scient:v:51:y:2001:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1012757802706 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. 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.
    15. Bruno S. Frey & Reiner Eichenberger & René L. Frey, 2009. "Editorial Ruminations: Publishing Kyklos," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 151-160, April.
    16. Andrew J. Oswald, 2007. "An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-Makers," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(293), pages 21-31, February.
    17. Laband, David N. & Tollison, Robert D., 2003. "Good colleagues," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 505-512, December.
    18. repec:cdl:ucsbec:16-01 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Kocher, Martin G & Sutter, Matthias, 2001. "The Institutional Concentration of Authors in Top Journals of Economics during the Last Two Decades," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(472), pages 405-421, June.
    20. Christopher Cotton, 2013. "Submission Fees and Response Times in Academic Publishing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 501-509, February.
    21. 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.
    22. Matthias Sutter & Martin G. Kochner, 2001. "Power laws of research output. Evidence for journals of economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(2), pages 405-414, June.
    23. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    24. 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.
    25. Blank, Rebecca M, 1991. "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1041-1067, December.
    26. Moore, William J & Newman, Robert J & Turnbull, Geoffrey K, 2001. "Reputational Capital and Academic Pay," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(4), pages 663-671, October.
    27. Mark J. McCabe & Christopher M. Snyder, 2005. "Open Access and Academic Journal Quality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(2), pages 453-459, May.
    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. repec:wsi:igtrxx:v:19:y:2017:i:01:n:s0219198916500109 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    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:bpj:bejeap:v:15:y:2015:i:2:p:865-889:n:2. 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). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.