IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/metaar/k9ybz_v1.html

Improving Peer Review in Economics: Stocktaking and Proposals

Author

Listed:
  • Charness, Gary
  • Dreber, Anna

    (Stockholm School of Economics)

  • Evans, Daniel
  • Gill, Adam
  • Toussaert, Severine

    (University of Oxford)

Abstract

Peer review is central to the lives of researchers. We conduct a survey on improving peer review to which we received responses from over 1,400 economists. The survey is the bedrock of this article, which was written to (i) document the current state of peer review and (ii) investigate concrete steps towards improving it. We offer a snapshot of the recent submission and peer review activity of respondents, detail the difficulties they report facing, and measure their attitudes about various challenges and possible proposals to address them. We hope that this report will provide fertile ground for the development and implementation of practical solutions for improving peer review in economics.

Suggested Citation

  • Charness, Gary & Dreber, Anna & Evans, Daniel & Gill, Adam & Toussaert, Severine, 2025. "Improving Peer Review in Economics: Stocktaking and Proposals," MetaArXiv k9ybz_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:metaar:k9ybz_v1
    DOI: 10.31222/osf.io/k9ybz_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/686fd4f25db5ad7200a6c75a/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31222/osf.io/k9ybz_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Squazzoni, Flaminio & Bravo, Giangiacomo & Takács, Károly, 2013. "Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 287-294.
    2. Peter Coles & John Cawley & Phillip B. Levine & Muriel Niederle & Alvin E. Roth & John J. Siegfried, 2010. "The Job Market for New Economists: A Market Design Perspective," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(4), pages 187-206, Fall.
    3. Eliot Abrams & Jonathan Libgober & John A. List, 2020. "Research Registries: Facts, Myths, and Possible Improvements," NBER Working Papers 27250, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. 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.
    5. Carl Mellström & Magnus Johannesson, 2008. "Crowding Out in Blood Donation: Was Titmuss Right?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 6(4), pages 845-863, June.
    6. Giangiacomo Bravo & Francisco Grimaldo & Emilia López-Iñesta & Bahar Mehmani & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2019. "The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, December.
    7. Christopher Cotton, 2013. "Submission Fees and Response Times in Academic Publishing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 501-509, February.
    8. Monica Aniela Zaharie & Marco Seeber, 2018. "Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1587-1609, December.
    9. Cherkashin, Ivan & Demidova, Svetlana & Imai, Susumu & Krishna, Kala, 2009. "The inside scoop: Acceptance and rejection at the journal of international economics," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 120-132, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Jens Prüfer & David Zetland, 2010. "An auction market for journal articles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 379-403, December.
    12. repec:plo:pone00:0217918 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Powdthavee, Nattavudh & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Knetsch, Jack L., 2018. "Lower-rated publications do lower academics’ judgments of publication lists: Evidence from a survey experiment of economists," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 33-44.
    14. David N. Laband, 1990. "Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 105(2), pages 341-352.
    15. Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, 2017. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 633-650, October.
    16. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2013. "Nine Facts about Top Journals in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 144-161, March.
    17. Craig Freeman, 2000. "Do Economic Journals Obey Economic Prescriptions?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 17(4), pages 371-384, December.
    18. repec:plo:pbio00:0050107 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. 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.
    20. Gary D. Thompson & Satheesh V. Aradhyula & George Frisvold & Russell Tronstad, 2010. "Does Paying Referees Expedite Reviews?: Results of a Natural Experiment," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(3), pages 678-692, January.
    21. Ofer H. Azar, 2004. "Rejections and the importance of first response times," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 31(3), pages 259-274, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, 2017. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 633-650, October.
    2. García, J.A. & Montero-Parodi, J.J. & Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa & Fdez-Valdivia, J., 2023. "How to motivate a reviewer with a present bias to work harder," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    3. Giuseppe Pernagallo, 2023. "Science in the mist: A model of asymmetric information for the research market," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 390-415, May.
    4. Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Joao Faria, 2012. "Search and research: the influence of editorial boards on journals’ quality," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 687-702, October.
    5. Sascha Baghestanian & Sergey V. Popov, 2018. "On publication, refereeing and working hard," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 51(4), pages 1419-1459, November.
    6. Ofer H. Azar, 2006. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 50(1), pages 37-50, March.
    7. Karel Hrazdil & Pavel Král & Jiri Novak & Nattavut Suwanyangyuan, 2026. "On the determinants of journal rejection rates: evidence from the Journal of Financial Economics," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 12(1), pages 1-24, December.
    8. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2017. "What do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Leading Economics Journals," NBER Working Papers 23282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. María Victoria Anauati & Sebastian Galiani & Ramiro H. G�lvez, 2018. "Differences in citation patterns across journal tiers in economics," Documentos de Trabajo 16701, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association (LACEA).
    10. María Victoria Anauati & Sebastian Galiani & Ramiro H. Gálvez, 2020. "Differences In Citation Patterns Across Journal Tiers: The Case Of Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(3), pages 1217-1232, July.
    11. Damien Besancenot & João Ricardo Faria & Franklin G. Mixon, 2017. "Academic Research and the Strategic Interaction of Scholars and Editors: A Two-Stage Game," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(01), pages 1-16, March.
    12. João Ricardo Faria & Rajeev K. Goel, 2016. "Academic Publication Uncertainty and Publishing Behavior: A Game-Theoretic Perspective," CESifo Working Paper Series 6176, CESifo.
    13. Jonathan B. Berk & Campbell R. Harvey & David Hirshleifer, 2017. "How to Write an Effective Referee Report and Improve the Scientific Review Process," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(1), pages 231-244, Winter.
    14. Pengfei Jia & Weixi Xie & Guangyao Zhang & Xianwen Wang, 2023. "Do reviewers get their deserved acknowledgments from the authors of manuscripts?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5687-5703, October.
    15. Sun, Zhuanlan, 2024. "Textual features of peer review predict top-cited papers: An interpretable machine learning perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    16. Azar, Ofer H., 2008. "Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 420-435, March.
    17. Ofer H. Azar, 2007. "The Slowdown In First‐Response Times Of Economics Journals: Can It Be Beneficial?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 179-187, January.
    18. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
    19. Yushan Hu & Ben G. Li, 2021. "The production economics of economics production," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 228-255, February.
    20. Azar Ofer H., 2015. "A Model of the Academic Review Process with Informed Authors," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 865-889, April.

    More about this item

    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:osf:metaar:k9ybz_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.