IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sej/ancoec/v682y2001p457-463.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is It Worthwhile to Pay Referees?

Author

Listed:
  • Juin-jen Chang

    () (Department of Economics, Fu-Jen Catholic University, Hsingchuang, Taipei)

  • Ching-chong Lai

    () (Sun Yat-Sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy, Academia Sinica, Nankang, Taipei)

Abstract

There are puzzles in refereeing scholarly articles: Why are referees willing to review a paper without payment, and is it worthwhile to pay referees in order to raise the review rate? Two interesting results are found in this article. First, when reviewing services are driven by reciprocity, the equilibrium participation of referees may exhibit the so-called self-fulfilling feature. Second, the optimal payment may not be zero if the referee receives the benefit of reputation gained by refereeing an article. In particular, this article will show that those journals whose status quo review rate is lower tend to pay reviewers more while journals whose status quo review rate is higher do not find it worthwhile to pay referees enough. This result implies that, in order to raise its quality, a journal with a low review rate is more likely to adopt a strategy to increase pay and attract a critical mass of referees.

Suggested Citation

  • Juin-jen Chang & Ching-chong Lai, 2001. "Is It Worthwhile to Pay Referees?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 457-463, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sej:ancoec:v:68:2:y:2001:p:457-463
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Squazzoni, Flaminio & Bravo, Giangiacomo & Takács, Károly, 2013. "Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 287-294.
    3. Ofer H. Azar, 2007. "The Slowdown In First-Response Times Of Economics Journals: Can It Be Beneficial?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 179-187, January.
    4. Canoy, M. & in 't Veld, D., 2014. "How to boost the production of free services: In search of the holy referee grail," CeNDEF Working Papers 14-03, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Center for Nonlinear Dynamics in Economics and Finance.
    5. Louis de Mesnard, 2014. "On the marketization of the academic review process. (VF) Sur la marchandisation du processus de referee des revues académiques," Working Papers CREGO 1141001, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
    6. Azar, Ofer H., 2008. "Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 420-435, March.
    7. repec:spr:scient:v:115:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2664-3 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Sascha Baghestanian & Sergey V. Popov, 2014. "On Publication, Refereeing, and Working Hard," Economics Working Papers 14-04, Queen's Management School, Queen's University Belfast.
    9. Jac C. Heckelman, 2017. "Tullock on the organization of scientific inquiry," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 1-17, March.
    10. Canoy Marcel & Veld Daan L. in ’t, 2014. "How to Boost the Production of Free Services: In Search of the Holy Referee Grail," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-14, June.

    More about this item

    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:sej:ancoec:v:68:2:y:2001:p:457-463. 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: (Laura Razzolini). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/seaaaea.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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.