Are Leading Papers of Better Quality? Evidence from a Natural Experiment
Leading papers in a journal’s issue attract, on average, more citations than those that follow. It is, however, difficult to assess whether they are of better quality (as is often suggested), or whether this happens just because they appear first in an issue. We make use of a natural experiment that was carried out by a journal in which papers are randomly ordered in some issues, while this order is not random in others. We show that leading papers in randomly ordered issues also attract more citations, which casts some doubt on whether, in general, leading papers are of higher quality.
|Date of creation:||2008|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published by:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (32 2) 650 30 75
Fax: (32 2) 650 44 75
Web page: http://difusion.ulb.ac.be
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ayres, Ian & Vars, Fredrick E, 2000. "Determinants of Citations to Articles in Elite Law Reviews," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 427-50, January.
- Sofronis Clerides & Panos Pashardes & Alexandros Polycarpou, 2006.
"Peer Review vs Metric-Based Assessment: Testing for Bias in the RAE Ratings of UK Economics Departments,"
University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics
7-2006, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
- Sofronis Clerides & Panos Pashardes & Alexandros Polycarpou, 2011. "Peer Review vs Metric‐based Assessment: Testing for Bias in the RAE Ratings of UK Economics Departments," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 78(311), pages 565-583, 07.
- Victor Ginsburgh & Jan van Ours, 2003.
"Expert opinion and compensation: evidence from a musical competition,"
ULB Institutional Repository
2013/1681, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Victor A. Ginsburgh & Jan C. van Ours, 2003. "Expert Opinion and Compensation: Evidence from a Musical Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 289-296, March.
- GINSBURGH, Victor & van OURS, Jan, 2002. "Expert opinion and compensation: evidence from a musical competition," CORE Discussion Papers 2002033, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- William J. Moore & Robert J. Newman & Peter J. Sloane & Jeremy D. Steely, . "Productivity Effects of Research Assessment Exercises," Departmental Working Papers 2002-15, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
- Oswald, Andrew J., 2006.
"An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-makers,"
IZA Discussion Papers
2070, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Andrew J. Oswald, 2007. "An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-Makers," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(293), pages 21-31, 02.
- Oswald, Andrew J., 2006. "An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-makers," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 744, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eca:wpaper:2008_014. 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: (Benoit Pauwels)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.