IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bus/jphile/v16y2023i1n10.html

Heterodoxy Needs Institutional Backing

Author

Listed:
  • Bruno Frey

    (University of Basel; Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts, Zürich (Switzerland))

  • Andre Briviba

    (University of Fribourg (Switzerland); Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts, Zürich (Switzerland))

Abstract

A general aversion to new ideas, psychological factors, and foremost, institutional conditions shape the challenging position of heterodox economics. This institutional framework is coined by a strong orientation towards publication metrics and influences young scholars to conformity. We propose two ideas to improve the conditions for heterodox research. First, to introduce competition between journals for the scientific papers they want to have the most. Second, to establish a qualified random selection of papers to equalize the chances of publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruno Frey & Andre Briviba, 2023. "Heterodoxy Needs Institutional Backing," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 16(1), pages 243-253, Annual.
    • Handle: RePEc:bus:jphile:v:16:y:2023:i:1:n:10
    DOI: 10.46298/jpe.10889
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://jpe.episciences.org/12410/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10889
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.46298/jpe.10889?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George A. Akerlof, 2020. "Sins of Omission and the Practice of Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(2), pages 405-418, June.
    2. 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.
    3. James J. Heckman & Sidharth Moktan, 2020. "Publishing and Promotion in Economics: The Tyranny of the Top Five," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(2), pages 419-470, June.
    4. Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein & Philippe Mongeon, 2015. "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    5. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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 & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    2. Fabian Scheidegger & Andre Briviba & Bruno S. Frey, 2023. "Behind the curtains of academic publishing: strategic responses of economists and business scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4765-4790, August.
    3. Rose, Michael E. & Opolot, Daniel C. & Georg, Co-Pierre, 2022. "Discussants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    4. Bruns, Stephan B. & Doucouliagos, Anthony & Doucouliagos, Hristos & König, Johannes & Stanley, T.D. & Zigova, Katarina, 2026. "The delayed acceptance of female research in economics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    5. Christoph Siemroth, 2024. "Economics Peer-Review: Problems, Recent Developments, and Reform Proposals," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 69(2), pages 241-258, October.
    6. Püttmann, Vitus & Thomsen, Stephan L. & Trunzer, Johannes, 2020. "Zur Relevanz von Ausstattungsunterschieden für Forschungsleistungsvergleiche: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag für die Wirtschaftswissenschaften in Deutschland," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-679, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, revised Mar 2021.
    7. Magnus Henrekson & Lars Jonung & Mats Lundahl, 2025. "Not just the top five journals: A recipe for European economists," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(1), pages 123-131, February.
    8. Gehrig, Thomas & Stenbacka, Rune, 2021. "Journal competition and the quality of published research: Simultaneous versus sequential screening," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    9. Pat Pataranutaporn & Nattavudh Powdthavee & Chayapatr Achiwaranguprok & Pattie Maes, 2025. "Can AI Solve the Peer Review Crisis? A Large Scale Cross Model Experiment of LLMs' Performance and Biases in Evaluating over 1000 Economics Papers," Papers 2502.00070, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2025.
    10. Önder, Ali Sina & Schweitzer, Sascha & Yilmazkuday, Hakan, 2021. "Specialization, field distance, and quality in economists’ collaborations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    11. Brogaard, Jonathan & Engelberg, Joseph & Parsons, Christopher A., 2014. "Networks and productivity: Causal evidence from editor rotations," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 251-270.
    12. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    13. Stephan Puehringer & Johanna Rath & Teresa Griesebner, 2021. "The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    14. 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.
    15. Syed Hasan & Robert Breunig, 2021. "Article length and citation outcomes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7583-7608, September.
    16. Rodrigo Dorantes-Gilardi & Aurora A. Ramírez-Álvarez & Diana Terrazas-Santamaría, 2023. "Is there a differentiated gender effect of collaboration with super-cited authors? Evidence from junior researchers in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2317-2336, April.
    17. Tsui, Anne S., 2021. "Usefulness, Credibility and Scientific Norms: Reflections on Our Third Responsibility," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 75(2), pages 175-187.
    18. Krishna Muniyoor, 2022. "The Structure of Scholarly Publishing: a Case of Economics Research in India," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(3), pages 1801-1818, September.
    19. Ali Sina Önder & Sascha Schweitzer & Hakan Yilmazkuday, 2021. "Field Distance and Quality in Economists’ Collaborations," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2021-04, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.
    20. Peter Andre & Armin Falk, 2021. "What’s Worth Knowing? Economists’ Opinions about Economics," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 102, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • B40 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - General
    • A12 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    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:bus:jphile:v:16:y:2023:i:1:n:10. 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: Valentin Cojanu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aseeero.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.