|
on Sociology of Economics |
|
Issue of 2012‒08‒23
five papers chosen by Jonas Holmström Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration |
| By: | Christian Zimmermann |
| Abstract: | This document describes the data collection and use of data for the computation of rankings within RePEc (Research Papers in Economics). This encompasses the determination of impact factors for journals and working paper series, as well as the ranking of authors, institutions, and geographic regions. The various ranking methods are also compared, using a snapshot of the data. |
| Keywords: | Research and development |
| Date: | 2012 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:fip:fedlwp:2012-023&r=sog |
| By: | David W. Johnston (Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Australia); Marco Piatti (School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology, Australia); Benno Torgler (School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology, Australia, CREMA Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts, Switzerland, CESifo, Germany, and the National Centre for Econometric Research, Australia) |
| Abstract: | This study investigates the citation patterns of theoretical and empirical papers over a period of almost 30 years, while also exploring the determinants of citation success. The results indicate that empirical papers attract more citation success than theoretical studies. However, the pattern over time is very similar with yearly mean citations peaking after around 4 years. Moreover, among empirical papers it appears that the cross-country studies are more successful than single country studies focusing on North America data or other regions. |
| Keywords: | Citations, Theory, Empirics, Cross-Country, North America |
| JEL: | A11 B40 C0 N01 Z0 |
| Date: | 2012–07 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:fem:femwpa:2012.55&r=sog |
| By: | Ho Fai Chan; Benno Torgler |
| Abstract: | An academic award is method by which peers offer recognition of intellectual efforts. In this paper we take a purely descriptive look at the relationship between becoming a Fellow of the Econometric Society and receiving the Nobel Prize in economics. We discover some interesting aspects: of all 69 Nobel Prize Laureates between 1969 and 2011, only 9 of them were not also Fellows. Moreover, the proportion of future Nobel winners among the Fellows has been quite high throughout time and a large share of researchers who became Fellows between the 1930s and 1950s became Nobel Laureates at a later stage. On average, researchers become Fellows relatively early in their career (14.9 years after their PhD) and those who were subsequently made Nobel Laureates become Fellows earlier than other researchers. Interestingly, Harvard and MIT have been the dominant PhD granting institutions to generate Fellows and Nobel Laureates in the past. |
| Keywords: | Fellows of the Econometric Society; Nobel Laureate; ececonomics of science; awards |
| JEL: | D71 A14 |
| Date: | 2012–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cra:wpaper:2012-13&r=sog |
| By: | Johannes Fedderke |
| Abstract: | This paper examines the strength of association between the outcomes of National Research Foundation (NRF) peer review based rating mechanisms, and a range of objective measures of performance of researchers. The analysis is conducted on 1932 scholars that have received an NRF rating or an NRF research chair. We find that scholars with higher NRF ratings record higher performance on average against the objective measures of absolute output and the impact of their research, than scholars at lower ratings. In addition, the higher the performance of scholars against all objective measures of absolute output and impact, increases the probability of higher rating. However, we also find that the probability of achieving a B-rating remains higher than that of acheiving an A-rating even at the very highest levels of recorded performance for South African scholars. In addition, scholars who have received the highest ratings record objective levels of research output and impact of their research that are no different from the minimum levels of objective performance at much lower NRF ratings. Moreover, we find strong cross-disciplinary differences in terms of the impact that objective levels of performance have on the probability of achieving different NRF ratings. Finally, we report evidence that NRF peer review is less likely to reward multiauthored research output than single-authored output. |
| Keywords: | Subjective research ratings; objective research ratings; research funding |
| JEL: | H83 I22 I23 |
| Date: | 2012 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:rza:wpaper:300&r=sog |
| By: | Courty, Pascal; Sim, John |
| Abstract: | The compensation of a professor who is awarded an internal Canada Research Chair (CRC) increases by 6.3 percent on average in our sample. This gain is large initially but quickly erodes over CRC tenure. The gain is slightly larger for professors who change university to obtain a CRC Chair. Assuming that the CRC program has achieved its goal of attracting and retaining top talents, we infer that the compensation cost of doing so is modest. In addition, only a small fraction of the CRC grants have been passed through to professors as compensation increases. This is despite the fact that universities report spending more than half of the CRC grants on chairholder compensation. |
| Keywords: | Brain drain; Canada Research Chair; Compensation; Crowding out |
| JEL: | I23 J3 |
| Date: | 2012–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:8966&r=sog |