IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login

Citations for "Facts and Myths about Refereeing"

by Daniel S. Hamermesh

For a complete description of this item, click here. For a RSS feed for citations of this item, click here.
as in new window

  1. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2006. "Can Incentives for Research Harm Research? A Business Schools Tale," ESSEC Working Papers DR 06003, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
  2. Jens Prüfer & David Zetland, 2010. "An auction market for journal articles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 379-403, December.
  3. Glenn Ellison, 2000. "The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process," NBER Working Papers 7804, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Besancenot Damien & Faria João R. & Huynh Kim V., 2014. "Congestion of Academic Journals Under Papers’ Imperfect Selection," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 14(3), pages 1145-1167, July.
  5. Polterovich, V., 2011. "The Mission of an Economic Journal and the Institution of Refereeing," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, issue 12, pages 194-197.
  6. Bruno S. Frey, . "Publishing as Prostitution? Choosing Between One‘s Own Ideas and Academic Failure," IEW - Working Papers 117, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
  7. Amanda H Goodall, 2005. "Should top universities be led by top researchers, and are they?," General Economics and Teaching 0510003, EconWPA.
  8. Moizer, Peter, 2009. "Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 285-304, February.
  9. 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.
  10. Benno Torgler & Marco Piatti, 2011. "A Century of American Economic Review," School of Economics and Finance Discussion Papers and Working Papers Series 266, School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology.
  11. Thompson, Gary D. & Aradhyula, Satheesh V. & Frisvold, George B. & Tronstad, Russell, 2004. "Does Paying Referees Expedite Reviews?," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19988, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  12. repec:dgr:kubtil:2007027 is not listed on IDEAS
  13. KRAPF, Matthias & SCHLÄPFER, Jörg, 2012. "How Nobel Laureates Would Perform In The Handelsblatt Ranking," Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 12(3).
  14. repec:dgr:uvatin:20040113 is not listed on IDEAS
  15. repec:dgr:uvatin:2004113 is not listed on IDEAS
  16. Pannell, David J., 2002. "Prose, psychopaths and persistence: Personal perspectives on publishing," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra 125145, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  17. 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.
  18. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan, 2001. "Are Referees Sufficiently Informed About The Editor'S Practice?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 1-11, August.
  19. 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.
  20. Adams, Renée B. & Ferreira, Daniel, 2008. "Do directors perform for pay?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 154-171, September.
  21. Atal, Vidya, 2010. "Do journals accept too many papers?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 229-232, May.
  22. Amanda Goodall, 2005. "Should Research Universities be led by top researchers? Part 1: Are they?," CEE Discussion Papers 0051, Centre for the Economics of Education, LSE.
  23. Craig Freeman, 2000. "Do Economic Journals Obey Economic Prescriptions?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 371-384, December.
  24. Ofer Azar, 2003. "Rejections and the Importance of First Response Times (Or: How Many Rejections Do Others Receive?)," General Economics and Teaching 0309002, EconWPA.
  25. repec:hal:wpaper:halshs-00382585 is not listed on IDEAS
  26. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Aging and Productivity, Rationality and Matching: Evidence from Economists," NBER Working Papers 4906, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  27. Seidl, Christian & Schmidt, Ulrich & Grösche, Peter, 2005. "The Performance of Peer Review and a Beauty Contest of Referee Processes of Economics Journals/," Estudios de Economía Aplicada, Estudios de Economía Aplicada, vol. 23, pages 505-551, Diciembre.
  28. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is it Too Fast?," General Economics and Teaching 0503013, EconWPA.
  29. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
  30. Berg, Nathan & Faria, Joao, 2008. "Negatively correlated author seniority and the number of acknowledged people: Name-recognition as a signal of scientific merit?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1234-1247, June.
  31. MIRUCKI, Jean, 1999. "Economics Research in France: Tentative Conclusions Based on EconLit Database," MPRA Paper 27431, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  32. Baghestanian, Sascha & Popov, Sergey, 2014. "On Publication, Refereeing and Working Hard," MPRA Paper 58539, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  33. Daniel S. Hamermesh & Peter Schmidt, 2001. ""Hall of Fame" Voting: The Econometric Society," NBER Working Papers 8435, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  34. John Creedy, 2006. "From Manuscript to Publication: A Brief Guide for Economists," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 39(1), pages 103-113, 03.
  35. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," General Economics and Teaching 0502069, EconWPA.
This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.