IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Search and Research: The influence of editorial boards on journals' quality

  • Damien Besancenot


    (CEPN - Centre d'Economie de l'Université Paris Nord (ancienne affiliation) - Université 13 - CNRS)

  • Joao Faria


    (IPED - Institute for Policy and Economic Development - University of Texas-El Paso)

  • Kim Huynh


    (LEM - Laboratoire d'Économie Moderne - UP2 - Université Panthéon-Assas - M.E.N.E.S.R. - Ministère de l'Éducation nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche)

This paper considers the search for the best papers by the editors of an academic journal. Editors' search is sequential. At each period, each editor receives one submission from a researcher and has to decide if she accepts or rejects the paper. The editorial board is heterogeneous, some editors being more demanding than others. On the academic side, researchers choose the quality level of their papers in order to maximize their utility function taking as given the composition of the editorial board. We show that three equilibria may occur. When the number of the less demanding editors is high, or if the editors exhibit great differences in their demand for quality, the journal will attract fewer submissions, publish a small number of papers and these papers will be of low quality. When the editorial board is composed by a homogeneous set of very demanding editors, the journal will publish a high number of high quality papers. For some intermediate structure of the board, a situation of multiple equilibria allows a hybrid equilibrium to exist in which the journal receives both good and bad papers. The long run and welfare implications of these equilibria are analyzed.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by HAL in its series CEPN Working Papers with number halshs-00370785.

in new window

Date of creation: 25 Mar 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:hal:cepnwp:halshs-00370785
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server:
Contact details of provider: Web page:

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. Azar, Ofer H., 2002. "The slowdown in first-response times of economics journals: Can it be beneficial?," MPRA Paper 4478, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  2. Rajeev K. Goel & Jo�o Ricardo Faria, 2007. "Proliferation Of Academic Journals: Effects On Research Quantity And Quality," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 536-549, November.
  3. Rajeev K. Goel, 2006. "The Game Academics Play: Comment," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 19-23, 01.
  4. 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.
  5. Ivan Cherkashin & Demidova Svetlana & Susumu Imai & Kala Krishna, 2008. "The Inside Scoop: Acceptance and Rejection at the Journal of International Economics," Working Papers 1166, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
  6. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2006. "Can Incentives for Research Harm Research? A Business Schools Tale," ESSEC Working Papers DR 06003, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
  7. David N. Laband, 1990. "Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 105(2), pages 341-352.
  8. 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).
  9. Joshua S. Gans & George B. Shepherd, 1994. "How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 165-179, Winter.
  10. Stuart Macdonald & Jacqueline Kam, 2007. "Ring a Ring o' Roses: Quality Journals and Gamesmanship in Management Studies," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 640-655, 06.
  11. Derek Leslie, 2005. "Are Delays in Academic Publishing Necessary?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 407-413, March.
  12. repec:hal:wpaper:halshs-00589186 is not listed on IDEAS
  13. Hodgson, Geoffrey M & Rothman, Harry, 1999. "The Editors and Authors of Economics Journals: A Case of Institutional Oligopoly?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages F165-86, February.
  14. Glenn Ellison, 2000. "The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process," NBER Working Papers 7804, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. 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.
  16. Glenn Ellison, 2002. "Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q-r Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 994-1034, October.
  17. Besancenot, Damien & Huynh, Kim & Vranceanu, Radu, 2010. "A Matching Model of the Academic Publication Market," ESSEC Working Papers DR 10003, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
  18. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is it Too Fast?," General Economics and Teaching 0503013, EconWPA.
  19. Yohe, Gary W, 1980. "Current Publication Lags in Economics Journals," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 18(3), pages 1050-55, September.
  20. Stigler, George J & Stigler, Stephen M & Friedland, Claire, 1995. "The Journals of Economics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(2), pages 331-59, April.
  21. 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.
  22. Peter Diamond, 1987. "Consumer Differences and Prices in a Search Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 102(2), pages 429-436.
  23. Diamond, Peter A., 1971. "A model of price adjustment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 156-168, June.
  24. 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.
  25. Frey, Bruno S, 2003. " Publishing as Prostitution?--Choosing between One's Own Ideas and Academic Success," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 116(1-2), pages 205-23, July.
  26. M. Grubb, 2003. "Editorial," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 189-190, September.
  27. Joao Ricardo Faria, 2000. "The Game Academics Play: Editors Versus Authors," Working Paper Series 105, Finance Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
  28. Oster, Sharon, 1980. "The Optimal Order for Submitting Manuscripts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 444-48, June.
  29. Marshall H. Medoff, 2003. "Editorial Favoritism in Economics?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 70(2), pages 425-434, October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:cepnwp:halshs-00370785. 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: (CCSD)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.