IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ejw/journl/v2y2005i2p355-361.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decline in Critical Commentary, 1963–2004

Author

Listed:
  • Philip R. P. Coelho
  • Frederick De Worken-Eley III
  • James E. McClure

Abstract

Over the past four decades, top economics journals have virtually eliminated critical commentary (comments, replies, rejoinders, and the like). This article shows the data and discusses these steep declines in critical commentary. To the extent that critical commentary is beneficial to scientific inquiry, editorial opposition to critical commentary is detrimental to the advancement of economic knowledge.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip R. P. Coelho & Frederick De Worken-Eley III & James E. McClure, 2005. "Decline in Critical Commentary, 1963–2004," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 2(2), pages 355-361, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:2:y:2005:i:2:p:355-361
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econjwatch.org/file_download/82/2005-08-coelhoeleymcclure-econ_practice.pdf?mimetype=pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://econjwatch.org/196
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philip R. P. Coelho & James E. McClure, 2005. "Theory versus Application: Does Complexity Crowd Out Evidence?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 71(3), pages 556-565, January.
    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. 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.
    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. Philip R. P. Coelho & James E. McClure, 2006. "Why Has Critical Commentary Been Curtailed at Top Economics Journals? A Reply to Robert Whaples," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 3(2), pages 283-291, May.
    2. Brian Dollery & Joel Byrnes & Galia Akimova, 2008. "The Curtailment of Critical Commentary in Australian Economics," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 5(3), pages 349-351, September.
    3. Robert Whaples, 2006. "The Costs of Critical Commentary in Economics Journals," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 3(2), pages 275-282, May.
    4. Richard Jong-A-Pin & Jakob De Haan, 2008. "Growth Accelerations and Regime Changes: A Correction," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 5(1), pages 51-58, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Critical commentary; scientific inquiry; debate; editorial policy; prejudice; error; reliability; animosity; vanity;

    JEL classification:

    • A10 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - General
    • A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists
    • B40 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - General

    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:ejw:journl:v:2:y:2005:i:2:p:355-361. 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: (Jason Briggeman). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/edgmuus.html .

    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.