|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Cloos, Janis; Greiff, Matthias; Rusch, Hannes (RS: GSBE other - not theme-related research, Microeconomics & Public Economics) |
| Abstract: | We examine scientific quality and editorial favoritism in the field of experimental economics. We use a novel data set containing all original research papers (N=569) that exclusively used laboratory experiments for data generation and were published in the American Economic Review (AER), Experimental Economics (EE), or the Journal of the European Economic Association (JEEA) between 1998 and 2018. Several proxies for scientific quality indicate that experiments conducted in Europe are of higher quality than experiments conducted in the US: European experiments rely on larger numbers of participants as well as participants per treatment and receive more citations. For the AER and the JEEA, but not for EE, we find that papers authored by economists with social ties to the editors receive significantly fewer citations in the years following publication. Detailed analyses using a novel dynamic and continuous measure of the co-authorship distance between editors and authors imply that authors at longer distances to editors have to write papers of higher quality in order to get published in the AER and the JEEA. We find no evidence that this ‘uphill battle’ is associated with geographical distance. |
| JEL: | A11 A14 C90 I23 |
| Date: | 2021–03–17 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:unm:umagsb:2021005&r=all |
| By: | Haucap, Justus; Moshgbar, Nima; Schmal, Wolfgang Benedikt |
| Abstract: | The German DEAL agreements between German universities and research institutions on the one side and Springer Nature and Wiley on the other side facilitate easy open access publishing for researchers located in Germany. We use a dataset of all publications in chemistry from 2016 to 2020 and apply a difference-in-differences approach to estimate the impact on eligible scientists' choice of publication outlet. We find that even in the short period following the conclusion of these DEAL agreements, publication patterns in the field of chemistry have changed, as eligible researchers have increased their publications in Wiley and Springer Nature journals at the cost of other journals. From that two related competition concerns emerge: First, academic libraries may be, at least in the long run, left with fewer funds and incentives to subscribe to non-DEAL journals published by smaller publishers or to fund open access publications in these journals. Secondly, eligible authors may prefer to publish in journals included in the DEAL agreements, thereby giving DEAL journals a competitive advantage over non-DEAL journals in attracting good papers. Given the two-sided market nature of the academic journal market, these effects may both further spur the concentration process in this market. |
| JEL: | D43 I23 L86 |
| Date: | 2021 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:dicedp:360&r=all |
| By: | Klaus Wohlrabe; Constantin Bürgi |
| Abstract: | Many papers in economics that are published in peer reviewed journals are initially released in widely circulated working paper series. This raises the question about the benefit of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal in terms of citations. Specifically, we address the question: To what extent does the stamp of approval obtained by publishing in a peer-reviewed journal lead to more subsequent citations for papers that are already available in working paper series? Our data set comprises about 28.000 working papers from four major working paper series in economics. Using panel data methods, we show that the publication in a peer reviewed journal results in around twice the number of yearly citations relative to working papers that never get published in a journal. Our results hold in several robustness checks. |
| Keywords: | peer review, citations, RePEc, working paper, preprint |
| JEL: | A10 A12 |
| Date: | 2021 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ces:ceswps:_8925&r=all |
| By: | Jonung, Lars (Department of Economics, Lund University) |
| Abstract: | John Maynard Keynes became world famous with the publication of The Economic Consequences of the Peace in 1919, a harsh critique of the Versailles peace treaty. As a consequence, Keynes was nominated by German professors in economics for the Nobel Peace Prize three years in a row, 1922, 1923 and 1924. Because Keynes was put on the shortlist of candidates, he was evaluated in an advisory report in 1923, followed by one in 1924, prepared for the Nobel Committee of the Norwegian parliament. This paper summarizes the two reports on Keynes. The appraisals were highly appreciative of Keynes’s book as well as of his subsequent newspaper and journal articles on the peace treaty, raising the question: why did Keynes not receive the Peace Prize? The appraiser of Keynes even informed Keynes that he was “one of the foremost candidates proposed for the Nobel Peace Prize.” However, the Peace Prize was not awarded in 1923 and 1924 although Keynes was declared a worthy laureate. There are no protocols that shed light on this issue. Still, the events surrounding the evaluation process, in particular the public clash between two advisors of the Prize Committee on Keynes’s account of the negotiations at Versailles, encourage a speculative answer. |
| Keywords: | John Maynard Keynes; Nobel Peace Prize; Treaty of Versailles; reparations; Dawes Plan; Bretton Woods; Norway |
| JEL: | A11 B10 B31 D70 E12 E60 F30 F50 N10 N40 |
| Date: | 2021–03–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:lunewp:2021_004&r=all |
| By: | Xuan Jiang; Wan-Ying Chang; Bruce A. Weinberg |
| Abstract: | This paper uses newly available data from Web of Science on publications matched to researchers in Survey of Doctorate Recipients to compare scientific publications collected by surveys and algorithmic approaches. We aim to illustrate the different types of measurement errors in self-reported and machine-generated data by estimating how publication measures from the two approaches are related to career outcomes (e.g. salaries, placements, and faculty rankings). We find that the potential biases in the self-reports are smaller relative to the algorithmic data. Moreover, the errors in the two approaches are quite intuitive: the measurement errors of the algorithmic data are mainly due to the accuracy of matching, which primarily depends on the frequency of names and the data that was available to make matches; while the noise in self reports is expected to increase over the career as researchers’ publication records become more complex, harder to recall, and less immediately relevant for career progress. This paper provides methodological suggestion on evaluating the quality and advantages of two approaches to data construction. It also provides guidance on how to use the new linked data. |
| JEL: | C26 J24 J3 O31 |
| Date: | 2021–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:28431&r=all |