Revealed Preferences for Journals: Evidence from Page Limits
Academic journals set a variety of policies that affect the supply of new manuscripts. We study the impact of page limit policies adopted by the American Economic Review (AER) in 2008 and the Journal of the European Economic Association (JEEA) in 2009 in response to a substantial increase in the length of articles in economics. We focus the analysis on the decision by potential authors to either shorten a longer manuscript in response to the page limit, or submit to another journal. For the AER we find little indication of a loss of longer papers - instead, authors responded by shortening the text and reformatting their papers. For JEEA, in contrast, we estimate that the page length policy led to nearly complete loss of longer manuscripts. These findings provide a revealed-preference measure of competition between journals and indicate that a top-5 journal has substantial monopoly power over submissions, unlike a journal one notch below. At both journals we find that longer papers were more likely to receive a revise and resubmit verdict prior to page limits, suggesting that the loss of longer papers may have had a detrimental effect on quality at JEEA. Despite a modest impact of the AER's policy on the average length of submissions (-5%), the policy had little or no effect on the length of final accepted manuscripts. Our results highlight the importance of evaluating editorial policies.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
|Date of creation:||Dec 2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Note:||ED IO LS PE PR|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.nber.org
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.:
- 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 169-88, Summer.
- Raj Chetty & Emmanuel Saez & László Sándor, . "What Policies Increase Prosocial Behavior? An Experiment with Referees at the Journal of Public Economics," Working Paper 176786, Harvard University OpenScholar.
- Raj Chetty & Emmanuel Saez & László Sándor, 2014. "What Policies Increase Prosocial Behavior? An Experiment with Referees at the Journal of Public Economics," NBER Working Papers 20290, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Fabian Waldinger, 2009.
"Peer Effects in Science - Evidence from the Dismissal of Scientists in Nazi Germany,"
CEP Discussion Papers
dp0910, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
- Fabian Waldinger, 2012. "Peer Effects in Science: Evidence from the Dismissal of Scientists in Nazi Germany," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 79(2), pages 838-861.
- Fabian Waldinger, 2009. "Peer effects in science: evidence from the dismissal of scientists in Nazi Germany," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 28518, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Glenn Ellison, 2011.
"Is Peer Review In Decline?,"
Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(3), pages 635-657, 07.
- David N. Laband & Robert D. Tollison, 2000. "Intellectual Collaboration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(3), pages 632-661, June.
- Zvi Griliches, 1998. "R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril98-1, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:18663. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.