IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!)

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. Amanda H Goodall, 2005. "Should Research Universities be Led by Top Researchers? Part 1: Are they?," HEW 0506003, EconWPA.
  2. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2008. "Can incentives for research harm research? A business schools' tale," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1248-1265, June.
  3. Sahana Roy Chowdhury, 2016. "When do referees shirk in a peer review process?," Economics and Business Letters, Oviedo University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 45-49.
  4. Ofer H. Azar, 2006. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," The American Economist, , vol. 50(1), pages 37-50, March.
  5. MIRUCKI, Jean, 1999. "Economics Research in France: Tentative Conclusions Based on EconLit Database," MPRA Paper 27431, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  6. Jens Prüfer & David Zetland, 2010. "An auction market for journal articles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 379-403, December.
  7. Paul Gopuran Devassy Bino & Sasidharan Subash & Ananthakrishnan Ramanathan, 2005. "Concentration in Knowledge Output: A case of Economics Journals," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 2(2), pages 261-279, December.
  8. 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.
  9. Hendrik P. van Dalen & Kène Henkens, 2004. "Signals in Science - On the Importance of Signaling in Gaining Attention in Science," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-113/1, Tinbergen Institute.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. David J. Pannell, 2002. "Prose, Psychopaths and Persistence: Personal Perspectives on Publishing," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 50(2), pages 101-115, 07.
  14. 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).
  15. Amanda H Goodall, 2005. "Should top universities be led by top researchers, and are they?," General Economics and Teaching 0510003, EconWPA.
  16. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Aging and Productivity, Rationality and Matching: Evidence from Economists," NBER Working Papers 4906, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  17. Benno Torgler & Marco Piatti, 2011. "A Century of American Economic Review," Working Papers 2011.27, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. repec:spr:scient:v:64:y:2005:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-005-0248-5 is not listed on IDEAS
  22. Daniel S. Hamermesh & Peter Schmidt, 2001. ""Hall of Fame" Voting: The Econometric Society," NBER Working Papers 8435, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. Steven M. Shugan, 2002. "The Mission of Marketing Science," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 1-13.
  27. Adams, Renée B. & Ferreira, Daniel, 2008. "Do directors perform for pay?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 154-171, September.
  28. 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.
  29. Sascha Baghestanian & Sergey V. Popov, 2014. "On Publication, Refereeing, and Working Hard," Economics Working Papers 14-04, Queen's Management School, Queen's University Belfast.
  30. 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.
  31. Bruno S. Frey, "undated". "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.
  32. Steven M. Shugan, 2007. "The Editor's Secrets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 589-595, 09-10.
  33. 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.
  34. Ofer Azar, 2003. "Rejections and the Importance of First Response Times (Or: How Many Rejections Do Others Receive?)," General Economics and Teaching 0309002, EconWPA.
  35. Jac C. Heckelman, 2017. "Tullock on the organization of scientific inquiry," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 1-17, March.
  36. Gehrig, Thomas & Stenbacka, Rune, 2017. "Journal Competition and the Quality of Published Research: Simultaneous versus Sequential Screening," CEPR Discussion Papers 12065, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  37. Moizer, Peter, 2009. "Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 285-304, February.
  38. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
  39. 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).
  40. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, 01.
  41. Atal, Vidya, 2010. "Do journals accept too many papers?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 229-232, May.
  42. 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.
This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.