IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/igtrxx/v19y2017i01ns0219198916500109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Academic Research and the Strategic Interaction of Scholars and Editors: A Two-Stage Game

Author

Listed:
  • Damien Besancenot

    (Labex MME-DII and University of Paris, 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France)

  • João Ricardo Faria

    (MPA Program, University of Texas, El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA)

  • Franklin G. Mixon

    (Center for Economic Education, Columbus State University, Columbus, GA, USA)

Abstract

This paper presents a two-stage game in order to explore the strategic interaction between the editor of an academic journal and a representative scholar. At the outset of the game, the editor chooses the “characteristics†of the journal, which encompass its rejection rate and other facets of the journal’s profile. Next, the scholar decides whether or not to submit a paper to the journal. We show that scholars’ behavior precludes the possibility of low-quality journals. As such, editors have only the choice between managing high-quality journals with few issues or second-tier journals publishing many papers. Moreover, if our two-stage game suggests that higher costs for scholars contribute to journal quality, numerical simulation shows that the effect of these costs on journal quality may be low. Lastly, our game-theoretic approach points out that it is difficult for journal editors to define optimal rejection rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Damien Besancenot & João Ricardo Faria & Franklin G. Mixon, 2017. "Academic Research and the Strategic Interaction of Scholars and Editors: A Two-Stage Game," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(01), pages 1-16, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:igtrxx:v:19:y:2017:i:01:n:s0219198916500109
    DOI: 10.1142/S0219198916500109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219198916500109
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S0219198916500109?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
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    2. Azar Ofer H., 2015. "A Model of the Academic Review Process with Informed Authors," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 865-889, April.
    3. Lee, Sam-Ho, 2009. "A theory of self-selection in a market with matching frictions: An application to delay in refereeing times in economics journals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 344-360, October.
    4. Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar & Rafael Ruiz-Pérez & Víctor M. Fernández, 2002. "Impact-factor rewards affect Spanish research," Nature, Nature, vol. 417(6892), pages 898-898, June.
    5. Ofer H. Azar, 2004. "Rejections and the importance of first response times," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 31(3), pages 259-274, March.
    6. Cherkashin, Ivan & Demidova, Svetlana & Imai, Susumu & Krishna, Kala, 2009. "The inside scoop: Acceptance and rejection at the journal of international economics," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 120-132, February.
    7. Rajeev K. Goel, 2006. "The Game Academics Play: Comment," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 19-23, January.
    8. Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Radu Vranceanu, 2011. "A Matching Model of the Academic Publication Market," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 167(4), pages 708-725, December.
    9. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
    10. João Ricardo Faria, 2005. "The Game Academics Play: Editors versus Authors," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 1-12, January.
    11. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
    12. João Ricardo Faria & Paulo R.A. Loureiro & Franklin G. Mixon, Jr. & Adolfo Sachsida, 2013. "Faculty Promotion in Academe: Theory and Evidence from U.S. Economics Departments," Journal of Economics and Econometrics, Economics and Econometrics Society, vol. 56(1), pages 1-27.
    13. Katz, David A, 1973. "Faculty Salaries, Promotion, and Productivity at a Large University," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(3), pages 469-477, June.
    14. 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.
    15. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2008. "Can incentives for research harm research? A business schools' tale," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1248-1265, June.
    16. Oster, Sharon, 1980. "The Optimal Order for Submitting Manuscripts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 444-448, June.
    17. Heintzelman Martin & Nocetti Diego, 2009. "Where Should we Submit our Manuscript? An Analysis of Journal Submission Strategies," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-28, September.
    18. David N. Laband, 1990. "Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 105(2), pages 341-352.
    19. Derek Leslie, 2005. "Are Delays in Academic Publishing Necessary?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 407-413, March.
    20. 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.
    21. Vikas Mittal & Lawrence Feick & Feisal Murshed, 2008. "Publish and Prosper: The Financial Impact of Publishing by Marketing Faculty," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 430-442, 05-06.
    22. Laband, David N & Piette, Michael J, 1994. "Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(1), pages 194-203, February.
    23. Daniel S. Hamermesh & Gerard A. Pfann, 2012. "Reputation And Earnings: The Roles Of Quality And Quantity In Academe," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(1), pages 1-16, January.
    24. William J. Moore & Robert J. Newman & Dek Terrell, 2007. "Academic Pay in the United Kingdom and the United States: The Differential Returns to Productivity and the Lifetime Earnings Gap," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(3), pages 717-732, January.
    25. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1992. "The Young Economist's Guide to Professional Etiquette," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 169-179, Winter.
    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. Faria João R & Mixon Franklin G & Upadhyaya Kamal P, 2018. "Editor Reputation and Journal Quality: The Case of Regional Economic Association Journals," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 18(1), pages 1-20, January.
    2. João Ricardo Faria & Peter F. Wanke & João J. Ferreira & Franklin G. Mixon, 2018. "Research and innovation in higher education: empirical evidence from research and patenting in Brazil," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 487-504, July.

    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. 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.
    2. Heintzelman Martin & Nocetti Diego, 2009. "Where Should we Submit our Manuscript? An Analysis of Journal Submission Strategies," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-28, September.
    3. João Ricardo Faria & Rajeev K. Goel, 2016. "Academic Publication Uncertainty and Publishing Behavior: A Game-Theoretic Perspective," CESifo Working Paper Series 6176, CESifo.
    4. Besancenot Damien & Faria João R. & Huynh Kim V., 2014. "Congestion of Academic Journals Under Papers’ Imperfect Selection," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 14(3), pages 1145-1167, July.
    5. Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Radu Vranceanu, 2011. "A Matching Model of the Academic Publication Market," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 167(4), pages 708-725, December.
    6. Faria João R & Mixon Franklin G & Upadhyaya Kamal P, 2018. "Editor Reputation and Journal Quality: The Case of Regional Economic Association Journals," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 18(1), pages 1-20, January.
    7. Azar Ofer H., 2015. "A Model of the Academic Review Process with Informed Authors," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 865-889, April.
    8. Damien Besancenot & Joao R. Faria & Kim Van Huynh, 2009. "Congestion in academic journals under an impartial selection process," CEPN Working Papers halshs-00382585, HAL.
    9. Sascha Baghestanian & Sergey V. Popov, 2018. "On publication, refereeing and working hard," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 51(4), pages 1419-1459, November.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. João Faria & Rajeev Goel, 2010. "Returns to networking in academia," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 103-117, July.
    13. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2008. "Can incentives for research harm research? A business schools' tale," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1248-1265, June.
    14. Frank Mueller‐Langer & Richard Watt, 2021. "Optimal pricing and quality of academic journals and the ambiguous welfare effects of forced open access: A two‐sided model," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 1945-1959, December.
    15. Yuqing Zheng & Harry M. Kaiser, 2016. "Submission Demand In Core Economics Journals: A Panel Study," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 1319-1338, April.
    16. Giuseppe Pernagallo, 2023. "Science in the mist: A model of asymmetric information for the research market," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 390-415, May.
    17. Lee, Sam-Ho, 2009. "A theory of self-selection in a market with matching frictions: An application to delay in refereeing times in economics journals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 344-360, October.
    18. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
    19. Ofer Azar, 2003. "Rejections and the Importance of First Response Times (Or: How Many Rejections Do Others Receive?)," General Economics and Teaching 0309002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Leonid Tiokhin & Minhua Yan & Thomas J. H. Morgan, 2021. "Competition for priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(7), pages 857-867, July.

    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:wsi:igtrxx:v:19:y:2017:i:01:n:s0219198916500109. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/igtr/igtr.shtml .

    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.