IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kse/dpaper/35.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Peer Review versus Citations - An Analysis of Best Paper Prizes

Author

Listed:
  • Tom Coupe

    () (Kyiv School of Economics, Kyiv Economic Institute)

Abstract

In this paper, I analyze the ‘best paper’ prizes given by economics and finance journals to the best article published in their journal in a given year. More specifically, I compare the citations received by best paper prize-winning papers to citations received by papers that are awarded runner up prizes and to citations received by non-winning papers. In this way, I evaluate to what extent the prize jury members are able to pick the papers that are ‘best’ in terms of citations. The data show that the paper that gets the ‘best paper’ prize, is rarely the most cited paper; is, in a small majority of cases, cited more than the runner up papers and is, in most cases, cited more than the median paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Tom Coupe, 2010. "Peer Review versus Citations - An Analysis of Best Paper Prizes," Discussion Papers 35, Kyiv School of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:kse:dpaper:35
    Note: Submitted to Economic Journal
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.kse.org.ua/pdf/KSE_dp35.pdf
    File Function: November 2010
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner & Schier, Hermann & Rahm, Erhard & Thor, Andreas & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2009. "Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry—Citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published els," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 27-35.
    2. Broder, Ivy E, 1993. "Professional Achievements and Gender Differences among Academic Economists," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(1), pages 116-127, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Blank, Rebecca M, 1991. "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1041-1067, December.
    5. Daniel S. Hamermesh & Peter Schmidt, 2003. "The Determinants of Econometric Society Fellows Elections," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 399-407, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Valerie Smeets & Frédèric warzynski & Tom Coupé, 2006. "Does the Academic Labor Market Initially Allocate New Graduates Efficiently?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(3), pages 161-172, Summer.
    8. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Journal editors are poor selectors of best papers
      by Economic Logician in Economic Logic on 2011-01-13 21:05:00

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. V. Ginsburgh & Sheila Weyers, 2014. "Nominees, winners, and losers," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 38(4), pages 291-313, November.
    2. Ho Fai Chan & Bruno S. Frey & Jana Gallus & Benno Torgler, 2013. "Does the John Bates Clark Medal boost subsequent productivity and citation success?," ECON - Working Papers 111, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    3. Hofmeister Robert & Krapf Matthias, 2011. "How Do Editors Select Papers, and How Good are They at Doing It?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 2015. "Citations in Economics: Measurement, Uses and Impacts," NBER Working Papers 21754, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    peer review; citations; academic quality; performance evaluation;

    JEL classification:

    • A10 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:
    1. Economic Logic blog

    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:kse:dpaper:35. 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: (Iryna Sobetska). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ksecoua.html .

    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.