IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

The Performance of Peer Review and a Beauty Contest of Referee Processes of Economics Journals/

  • SEIDL, CHRISTIAN

    ()

    (Department of Economics, University of Kiel, Germany)

  • SCHMIDT, ULRICH

    (Department of Economics, University of Hannover, Germany,)

  • GRÖSCHE, PETER

    (Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Essen, Germany)

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.

File URL: http://www.revista-eea.net
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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.

Article provided by Estudios de Economía Aplicada in its journal Estudios de Economía Aplicada.

Volume (Year): 23 (2005)
Issue (Month): (Diciembre)
Pages: 505-551

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:lrk:eeaart:23_3_1
Contact details of provider: Postal: Beatriz Rodríguez Prado. Facultad de CC.EE. y EE. Avda. Valle del Esgueva. Valladolid 47011 SPAIN
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.:

as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. JS Armstrong, 2004. "Discovery and Communication of Important Marketing Findings: Evidence and Proposals," General Economics and Teaching 0412011, EconWPA.
  4. R. Purdy, 2002. "Editorial," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1-2, March.
  5. 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.
  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. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Facts and Myths about Refereeing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 153-163, Winter.
  11. R. K. Pachauri & Sujata Gupta, 2002. "Editorial," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2-3), pages 127-128, September.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

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 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.