The Performance of Peer Review and a Beauty Contest of Referee Processes of Economics Journals/
Peer review influences decisively personal advancement, research opportunities, salaries, grant-funding, promotion, and tenure. It claims to exert quality control of manuscripts and improve them, to promote innovative research, foster dissemination of new research, and to serve as a means to rank researchers, journals, and institutions. Nowadays per review mainly serves the purpose of imprinting a signal of quality on a scholar’s research. This requires a perfect performance of peer review. However, empirical research has shown that peer review lacks validity, impartiality, and fairness, which makes its claim to imprint manuscript excellence dubious. This is demonstrated in the first part of this paper which surveys peer-review research across all disciplines. In the second part of this paper, we report on an internet investigation conducted among economics authors. We found that there is a group of some eight top economics journals which fall at the bottom in most rankings. Moreover, we found that authors appreciate competence and carefulness of referee reports even more than manuscript acceptance.
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): 23 (2005)
Issue (Month): (Diciembre)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (34) 983 423320
Fax: (34) 983 184568
Web page: http://www.revista-eea.net
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Web: http://www.revista-eea.net Email: |
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.:
- Pantelis Kalaitzidakis & Theofanis P. Mamuneas & Thanasis Stengos, 2003.
"Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics,"
Journal of the European Economic Association,
MIT Press, vol. 1(6), pages 1346-1366, December.
- Pantelis Kalaitzidakis & Theofanis P Mamuneas & Thanasis Stengos, 2001. "Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics," Discussion Papers in Economics 01/8, Department of Economics, University of Leicester.
- 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.
- Glenn Ellison, 2000. "Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q-r Theory," NBER Working Papers 7805, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- JS Armstrong, 2004.
"Discovery and Communication of Important Marketing Findings: Evidence and Proposals,"
General Economics and Teaching
- Armstrong, J. Scott, 2003. "Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: Evidence and proposals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 69-84, January.
- R. Purdy, 2002. "Editorial," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1-2, March.
- Dewald, William G & Thursby, Jerry G & Anderson, Richard G, 1986. "Replication in Empirical Economics: The Journal of Money, Credit and Banking Project," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 587-603, September.
- Theodore C. Bergstrom, 2001.
"Free Labour for Costly Journals?,"
Journal of Economic Perspectives,
American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 183-198, Fall.
- Ted Bergstrom, 2001. "Free Labor for Costly Journals?," Microeconomics 0106002, EconWPA.
- Bergstrom, Ted, 2001. "Free Labor for Costly Journals?," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt5jc0893p, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
- Burton, M P & Phimister, Euan, 1995. "Core Journals: A Reappraisal of the Diamond List," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(429), pages 361-73, March.
- 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 1041-67, December.
- Malouin, Jean-Louis & -Francois Outreville, J., 1987. "The relative impact of economics journals: A cross-country survey and comparison," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 267-277, August.
- Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Facts and Myths about Refereeing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 153-163, Winter.
- R. K. Pachauri & Sujata Gupta, 2002. "Editorial," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2-3), pages 127-128, September.
- 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.
- Laband, David N, 1990. "Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics? Preliminary Evidence from Authors," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 105(2), pages 341-52, May.
- Hodgson, Geoffrey M & Rothman, Harry, 1999. "The Editors and Authors of Economics Journals: A Case of Institutional Oligopoly?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages F165-86, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lrk:eeaart:23_3_1. 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: (Beatriz Rodríguez Prado)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.