The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?
Recently many editors try to reduce the turnaround times of academic journals. Shorter turnaround times, however, will induce many additional submissions of low-quality papers, increasing significantly the workload of editors and referees, and the number of rejections prior to publication. I suggest several ideas how editors can shorten turnaround times and four ideas how they can still avoid frivolous submissions, thus improving the review process efficiency: higher submission fees; requiring authors to review papers in proportion to their submissions; using differential editorial delay – letting low-quality papers wait more; and banning papers from being submitted after a certain number of rejections.
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.:
- David N. Laband & Michael J. Piette, 2000. "Perceived Conduct and Professional Ethics among College Economics Faculty," The American Economist, , vol. 44(1), pages 24-33, March.
- Ofer H. Azar, 2007.
"The Slowdown In First-Response Times Of Economics Journals: Can It Be Beneficial?,"
Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 179-187, 01.
- 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.
- 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, 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.
- 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.
- Thomson, William, 2011.
"A Guide for the Young Economist,"
MIT Press Books,
The MIT Press,
edition 2, volume 1, number 0262016168.
- Ofer H. Azar, 2005.
"The Review Process in Economics: Is it Too Fast?,"
General Economics and Teaching
- Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Facts and Myths about Refereeing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 153-163, Winter.
- repec:eme:ijsepp:v:31:y:2004:i:3:p:259-274 is not listed on IDEAS
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502069. 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: (EconWPA)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.