IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2608.14760.html

The Price of Submission

Author

Listed:
  • Johan Fourie

Abstract

Economics journals ration access to peer review with time and money. A July 2026 census of 500 RePEc-ranked economics journals accepting unsolicited submissions finds that 113 (22.6 per cent) charge a fee, with incidence falling from 68 per cent in the top 50 to 2 per cent in the bottom 50. A sequential-submission model shows that waiting pays part of the capacity-clearing price, leaving the fee as a residual. Because rejected manuscripts move down the ranking, a fee reduces system-wide referee demand only when authors stop, shorten their submission chains or switch to journals requiring fewer reports.

Suggested Citation

  • Johan Fourie, 2026. "The Price of Submission," Papers 2608.14760, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2608.14760
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.14760
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sumiko Asai, 2024. "Determinants of manuscript submissions to fully open access journals: elasticity to article processing charges," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(3), pages 1687-1696, March.
    2. Doh-Shin Jeon & Jean-Charles Rochet, 2010. "The Pricing of Academic Journals: A Two-Sided Market Perspective," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 222-255, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Mark J. McCabe & Christopher M. Snyder, 2018. "Open Access as a Crude Solution to a Hold‐Up Problem in the Two‐Sided Market for Academic Journals," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 301-349, June.
    5. Raj Chetty & Emmanuel Saez & Laszlo Sandor, 2014. "What Policies Increase Prosocial Behavior? An Experiment with Referees at the Journal of Public Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(3), pages 169-188, Summer.
    6. Christopher Cotton, 2013. "Submission Fees and Response Times in Academic Publishing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 501-509, February.
    7. Pat Pataranutaporn & Nattavudh Powdthavee & Chayapatr Achiwaranguprok & Pattie Maes, 2025. "Can AI Solve the Peer Review Crisis? A Large Scale Cross Model Experiment of LLMs' Performance and Biases in Evaluating over 1000 Economics Papers," Papers 2502.00070, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2025.
    8. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2020. "What Do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Economics Journals," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(1), pages 195-217, March.
    9. Martin Pollrich & Roland Strausz, 2024. "The Irrelevance of Fee Structures for Certification," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 55-72, March.
    10. Dietmar Wolfram & Peiling Wang & Fuad Abuzahra, 2021. "An exploration of referees’ comments published in open peer review journals: The characteristics of review language and the association between review scrutiny and citations [Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Inn," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 314-322.
    11. Emmanuel Farhi & Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2013. "Fear of rejection? Tiered certification and transparency," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(4), pages 610-631, December.
    12. Zhang, Guangyao & Xu, Shenmeng & Sun, Yao & Jiang, Chunlin & Wang, Xianwen, 2022. "Understanding the peer review endeavor in scientific publishing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Barbos, Andrei, 2013. "Project screening with tiered evaluation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 293-306.
    3. Alexander Cuntz & Frank Mueller-Langer & Alessio Muscarnera & Prince C. Oguguo & Marc Scheufen, 2024. "Access to science and innovation in the developing world," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 78, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    4. Houqiang Yu & Yian Liang & Yinghua Xie, 2024. "Can peer review accolade awards motivate reviewers? A large-scale quasi-natural experiment," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Christophe Hurlin & Jean-Edouard Colliard & Christophe Pérignon, 2024. "The Economics of Computational Reproducibility," Working Papers hal-04759240, HAL.
    6. Johan Fourie, 2026. "Messy Research, Certification and the Monetization of Science," Working Papers 07/2026, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.
    7. Hou, Li & Wu, Qiang & Xie, Yundong, 2024. "Does open identity of peer reviewers positively relate to citations?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    8. Christoph Siemroth, 2024. "Economics Peer-Review: Problems, Recent Developments, and Reform Proposals," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 69(2), pages 241-258, October.
    9. Philipp Kohlgruber & Christoph Kuzmics, 2017. "The distribution of article quality and inefficiencies in the market for scientific journals," Graz Economics Papers 2017-11, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    10. Sun, Zhuanlan, 2024. "Textual features of peer review predict top-cited papers: An interpretable machine learning perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Gehrig, Thomas & Stenbacka, Rune, 2021. "Journal competition and the quality of published research: Simultaneous versus sequential screening," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    14. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Scheufen, Marc & Waelbroeck, Patrick, 2020. "Does online access promote research in developing countries? Empirical evidence from article-level data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    15. Oliver Budzinski & Thomas Grebel & Jens Wolling & Xijie Zhang, 2020. "Drivers of article processing charges in open access," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2185-2206, September.
    16. Ning Li, 2026. "Merit or networks? What decides where research is published," Papers 2606.03763, arXiv.org.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Zohid Askarov & Anthony Doucouli & Hristos Doucouli & T D Stanley, 2023. "The Significance of Data-Sharing Policy," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 1191-1226.
    20. Dwenger, Nadja & Kleven, Henrik & Rasul, Imran & Rincke, Johannes, 2014. "Extrinsic vs Intrinsic Motivations for Tax Compliance. Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment in Germany," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100389, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2608.14760. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    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.