The slowdown in first-response times of economics journals: Can it be beneficial?
The first response time (henceforth FRT) of economics journals has increased over the last four decades from 1-2 months to 3-6 months. The optimal FRT, however, is not zero, because the FRT deters submission of mediocre papers to good journals and consequently saves valuable time of referees and editors. The change in the actual FRT is in the same direction as the change in the optimal FRT, which has increased because of the availability of research on the Internet prior to publication and because the costs of refereeing a paper have increased.
|Date of creation:||2002|
|Publication status:||Published in Economic Inquiry 45.1(2007): pp. 179-187|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
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.:
- Sauer, Raymond D, 1988. "Estimates of the Returns to Quality and Coauthorship in Economic Academia," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(4), pages 855-866, August.
- 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.
- Trivedi, Pravin K, 1993. "An Analysis of Publication Lags in Econometrics," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 93-100, Jan.-Marc.
- Ofer H. Azar, 2005.
"The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?,"
Southern Economic Journal,
Southern Economic Association, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
- Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is it Too Fast?," General Economics and Teaching 0503013, EconWPA.
- 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.
- Juin-jen Chang & Ching-chong Lai, 2001. "Is It Worthwhile to Pay Referees?," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 457-463, October.
- 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.
- Glenn Ellison, 2002. "The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 947-993, October.
- Glenn Ellison, 2000. "The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process," NBER Working Papers 7804, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- 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.
- Glenn Ellison, 2000. "Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q-r Theory," NBER Working Papers 7805, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Engers, Maxim & Gans, Joshua S, 1998. "Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1341-1349, December.
- Laband, David N & Tollison, Robert D & Karahan, Gokhan R, 2002. "Quality Control in Economics," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 315-334.
- Yohe, Gary W, 1980. "Current Publication Lags in Economics Journals," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 18(3), pages 1050-1055, September.
- Moore, William J & Newman, Robert J & Turnbull, Geoffrey K, 2001. "Reputational Capital and Academic Pay," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(4), pages 663-671, October. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)