IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v16y2005i2p180-200.html

How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication

Author

Listed:
  • William H. Starbuck

    (Department of Management, Stern School of Business, New York University, 40 West Fourth Street, Tisch 7-22, New York, New York 10012)

Abstract

Articles in high-prestige journals receive more citations and more applause than articles in less-prestigious journals, but how much more do these articles contribute to knowledge?This article uses a statistical theory of review processes to draw inferences about differences value between articles in more-prestigious versus less-prestigious journals. This analysis indicates that there is much overlap in articles in different prestige strata. Indeed, theory implies that about half of the articles published are not among the best ones submitted to those journals, and some of the manuscripts that belong in the highest-value 20% have the misfortune to elicit rejections from as many as five journals.Some social science departments and business schools strongly emphasize publication in prestigious journals. Although one can draw inferences about an author’s average manuscript from the percentage in top-tier journals, the confidence limits for such inferences are wide. A focus on prestigious journals may benefit the most prestigious departments or schools but add randomness to the decisions of departments or schools that are not at the very top. Such a focus may also impede the development of knowledge when mediocre research receives the endorsement of high visibility.

Suggested Citation

  • William H. Starbuck, 2005. "How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 180-200, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:16:y:2005:i:2:p:180-200
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0107
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1040.0107?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. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta & Oscar Volij, 2004. "The Measurement of Intellectual Influence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(3), pages 963-977, May.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Bruno S. Frey, 2003. "Publishing as prostitution? — Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success," Springer Books, in: Roger D. Congleton & Kai A. Konrad & Arye L. Hillman (ed.), 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking 2, pages 749-767, Springer.
    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. 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.
    2. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Josep Maria Argilés-Bosch & Yuliya Kasperskaya & Josep Garcia-Blandon & Diego Ravenda, 2025. "The interplay of author and editor gender in acceptance delays: evidence from accounting journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1939-1965, March.
    6. Christoph Siemroth, 2024. "Economics Peer-Review: Problems, Recent Developments, and Reform Proposals," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 69(2), pages 241-258, October.
    7. Bruno S. Frey, "undated". "Publishing as Prostitution? Choosing Between One�s Own Ideas and Academic Failure," IEW - Working Papers 117, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    8. Eric W. K. Tsang & Bruno S. Frey, 2006. "The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas," CREMA Working Paper Series 2006-09, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    9. Hatzinikolaou, Dimitris, 2012. "Failure in the market for reviewing economics papers: Good readers, bad referees, and ugly papers," MPRA Paper 45384, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 26 Sep 2012.
    10. Atal, Vidya, 2010. "Do journals accept too many papers?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 229-232, May.
    11. João Ricardo Faria & Damien Besancenot & Andreas J. Novak, 2011. "Paradigm Depletion, Knowledge Production And Research Effort: Considering Thomas Kuhn'S Ideas," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 587-604, November.
    12. 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.
    13. R. Preston McAfee, 2016. "Edifying Editing," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 61(1), pages 110-118, March.
    14. Buehling, Kilian, 2021. "Changing research topic trends as an effect of publication rankings – The case of German economists and the Handelsblatt Ranking," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    15. Berlemann, Michael & Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1108-1115.
    16. Lutz Bornmann & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2019. "Normalisation of citation impact in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 841-884, August.
    17. 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.
    18. Sahana Roy Chowdhury, 2016. "When do referees shirk in a peer review process?," Economics and Business Letters, Oviedo University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 45-49.
    19. Bayar, Onur & Chemmanur, Thomas J., 2021. "A model of the editorial process in academic journals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    20. Rabah Amir & Malgorzata Knauff, 2008. "Ranking Economics Departments Worldwide on the Basis of PhD Placement," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(1), pages 185-190, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:inm:ororsc:v:16:y:2005:i:2:p:180-200. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.