IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/empeco/v57y2019i3d10.1007_s00181-018-1466-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which leading journal leads? Idea diffusion in economics research journals

Author

Listed:
  • Allen Bellas

    () (Metropolitan State University)

  • Lea-Rachel Kosnik

    () (University of Missouri-St. Louis)

Abstract

Do general interest journals set the trends in research attention to particular topics, or is it field journals that have greater initial influence? In this paper, we focus on the subfield of environmental economics and attempt to empirically identify whether it has been the leading general interest journals or the top environmental economics field journal that has set the research trends on climate change, air pollution, water pollution, and other topics. We use textual analysis and Granger causality tests to investigate the question of which journals lead in publication of papers related to these topics in environmental economics. Our results indicate that leadership depends on the topic; however, there is some evidence that the top field journal in environmental economics generally took the lead in more controversial topics.

Suggested Citation

  • Allen Bellas & Lea-Rachel Kosnik, 2019. "Which leading journal leads? Idea diffusion in economics research journals," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 901-921, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:empeco:v:57:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s00181-018-1466-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s00181-018-1466-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00181-018-1466-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David N. Laband & Robert D. Tollison, 2000. "Intellectual Collaboration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(3), pages 632-661, June.
    2. Kosnik, Lea-Rachel, 2015. "What have economists been doing for the last 50 years? A text analysis of published academic research from 1960-2010," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW), vol. 9, pages 1-38.
    3. Sascha O. Becker & Ludger Woessmann, 2013. "Not the Opium of the People: Income and Secularization in a Panel of Prussian Counties," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 539-544, May.
    4. Loet Leydesdorff, 2008. "Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(2), pages 278-287, January.
    5. Björk, Bo-Christer & Solomon, David, 2013. "The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 914-923.
    6. Tove Faber Frandsen & Jeppe Nicolaisen, 2011. "Praise the bridge that carries you over: Testing the flattery citation hypothesis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(5), pages 807-818, May.
    7. Lea-Rachel Kosnik, 2016. "In Tandem Or Out Of Sync? Academic Economics Research And Public Policy Measures," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(1), pages 190-202, January.
    8. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 2013. "Six Decades of Top Economics Publishing: Who and How?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 162-172, March.
    9. Paul C. Tetlock, 2007. "Giving Content to Investor Sentiment: The Role of Media in the Stock Market," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(3), pages 1139-1168, June.
    10. Nelson, Charles R, 1979. "Granger Causality and the Natural Rate Hypothesis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(2), pages 390-394, April.
    11. Michael A. Kelly & Stephen Bruestle, 2011. "Trend Of Subjects Published In Economics Journals 1969–2007," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(3), pages 658-673, July.
    12. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2010. "What Drives Media Slant? Evidence From U.S. Daily Newspapers," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 35-71, January.
    13. Walter N. Thurman & Mark E. Fisher, 1988. "Chickens, Eggs, and Causality, or Which Came First?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(2), pages 237-238.
    14. Granger, C W J, 1969. "Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(3), pages 424-438, July.
    15. E. Han Kim & Adair Morse & Luigi Zingales, 2006. "What Has Mattered to Economics Since 1970," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 189-202, Fall.
    16. Kosnik, Lea-Rachel, 2014. "Determinants of contract completeness: An environmental regulatory application," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 198-208.
    17. Tove Faber Frandsen & Jeppe Nicolaisen, 2011. "Praise the bridge that carries you over: Testing the flattery citation hypothesis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(5), pages 807-818, May.
    18. Whaples, Robert, 1991. "A Quantitative History of the Journal of Economc History and the Cliometric Revolution," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 289-301, June.
    19. Peter Kennedy, 2003. "A Guide to Econometrics, 5th Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 5, volume 1, number 026261183x, September.
    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. Lea-Rachel Kosnik, 2018. "Cap-and-trade versus carbon taxes: which market mechanism gets the most attention?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 605-618, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental economics; Textual analysis; Granger causality; Research diffusion;

    JEL classification:

    • A10 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - General
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - 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:spr:empeco:v:57:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s00181-018-1466-z. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.