IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dij/wpfarg/1141001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the marketization of the academic review process. (VF) Sur la marchandisation du processus de referee des revues académiques

Author

Listed:
  • Louis de Mesnard

    () (IAE DIJON - Université de Bourgogne (CREGO))

Abstract

(VA)Pressure to change the academic reviewing system is growing. We discuss two groups of proposals that introducing market mechanisms. First, Prüfer and Zetland (2009), based on Havrilesky (1975), create an auction system: manuscripts are submitted and auctioned to editors in “academic dollars”, while citations earn credits for authors. Second, Fox and Petchey (2010), after Riyanto and Yetkiner (2002), create a “PubCred” currency, in which referees are paid and can then pay for their own submissions, while Aarssen (2008) and White and Ernest (2010) introduce hard cash remuneration for reviewers. These systems would adversely affect editors, referees, and authors alike, and would soon prove economically unworkable. (VF) : La pression pour changer le système de referee des revues académiques augmente. Nous discutons deux groupes de propositions qui introduisent des mécanismes de marché. Tout d'abord, Prüfer et Zetland (2009) proposent, en se basant sur Havrilesky (1975), de créer un système de vente aux enchères : les manuscrits sont soumis et achetés aux enchères par les éditeurs des revues “dollars académiques”, tandis que les citations rapportent des crédits aux auteurs. Deuxièmement, Fox et Petchey (2010), après Riyanto et Yetkiner (2002), proposent de créer une monnaie, le “PubCred”, dans lequel les referees sont payés et peuvent ensuite payer pour leurs propres soumissions, tandis que Aarssen (2008) et Blanc et Ernest (2010) introduisent une rémunération en espèces pour leurs auteurs. Nous montrons que ces systèmes seraient susceptibles de compromettre les éditeurs, les arbitres, et aussi les auteurs, et bientôt s'avérer économiquement irréalisable.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:dij:wpfarg:1141001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://crego.u-bourgogne.fr/images/stories/wp/ld-crego-1141001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jens Prüfer & David Zetland, 2010. "An auction market for journal articles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 379-403, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Derek Leslie, 2005. "Are Delays in Academic Publishing Necessary?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 407-413, March.
    4. Glenn Ellison, 2011. "Is Peer Review In Decline?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(3), pages 635-657, July.
    5. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Facts and Myths about Refereeing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 153-163, Winter.
    6. 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.
    7. Timothy Clark & Mike Wright, 2007. "Reviewing Journal Rankings and Revisiting Peer Reviews: Editorial Perspectives," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 612-621, June.
    8. Riyanto, Yohanes E & Yetkiner, I Hakan, 2002. "A Market Mechanism for Scientific Communication: A Proposal," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 563-567.
    9. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
    10. Marshall Medoff, 2006. "Evidence of a Harvard and Chicago Matthew Effect," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 485-506.
    11. Geoff Easton, 2007. "Liberating the Markets for Journal Publications: Some Specific Options," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 628-639, June.
    12. Gary D. Thompson & Satheesh V. Aradhyula & George Frisvold & Russell Tronstad, 2010. "Does Paying Referees Expedite Reviews? Results of a Natural Experiment," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 678-692, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Referee; éditeur; auteur; publications académiques; enchères; reviewing; reviewer; referee; editor; author; academic publishing; auction;

    JEL classification:

    • A10 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - General
    • A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists
    • A13 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Social Values
    • A14 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Sociology of Economics

    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:dij:wpfarg:1141001. 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: (Angèle RENAUD). General contact details of provider: .

    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.