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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. Azar, Ofer H., 2002. "Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process," MPRA Paper 4482, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  5. 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.
  6. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," General Economics and Teaching 0502069, EconWPA.
  7. 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.
  8. 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).
  9. 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.
  10. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Aging and Productivity, Rationality and Matching: Evidence from Economists," NBER Working Papers 4906, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  11. repec:hal:wpaper:halshs-00382585 is not listed on IDEAS
  12. Amanda H Goodall, 2005. "Should top universities be led by top researchers, and are they?," General Economics and Teaching 0510003, EconWPA.
  13. Ofer Azar, 2003. "Rejections and the Importance of First Response Times (Or: How Many Rejections Do Others Receive?)," General Economics and Teaching 0309002, EconWPA.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Prüfer, J. & Zetland, D., 2007. "An Auction Market for Journal Articles," Discussion Paper 2007-027, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
  17. Daniel S. Hamermesh & Peter Schmidt, 2001. ""Hall of Fame" Voting: The Econometric Society," NBER Working Papers 8435, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  18. 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.
  19. repec:aea:jecper:v:31:y:2017:i:1:p:231-44 is not listed on IDEAS
  20. 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.
  21. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is it Too Fast?," General Economics and Teaching 0503013, EconWPA.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. Paul G.D. Bino & S. Subash & A. Ramanathan, 2004. "Concentration in Knowledge Output:A Case of Economics Journals," General Economics and Teaching 0402001, EconWPA.
  27. 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.
  28. Steven M. Shugan, 2002. "The Mission of Marketing Science," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 1-13.
  29. Adams, Renée B. & Ferreira, Daniel, 2008. "Do directors perform for pay?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 154-171, September.
  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. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. Atal, Vidya, 2010. "Do journals accept too many papers?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 229-232, May.
  34. MIRUCKI, Jean, 1999. "Economics Research in France: Tentative Conclusions Based on EconLit Database," MPRA Paper 27431, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  35. 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.
  36. Steven M. Shugan, 2007. "The Editor's Secrets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 589-595, 09-10.
  37. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
  38. 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.
  39. Jac C. Heckelman, 2017. "Tullock on the organization of scientific inquiry," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 1-17, March.
  40. Moizer, Peter, 2009. "Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 285-304, February.
This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.