|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Fiala, Nathan; Neubauer, Florian; Peters, Jörg |
| Abstract: | Reanalyses of empirical studies and replications in new contexts are important for scientific progress. Journals in economics increasingly require authors to provide data and code alongside published papers, but how much does the economics profession indeed replicate? This paper summarizes existing replication definitions and reviews how much economists replicate other scholars' work. We argue that in order to counter incentive problems potentially leading to a replication crisis, replications in the spirit of Merton's 'organized skepticism' are needed - what we call 'policing replications'. We review leading economics journals to show that policing replications are rare and conclude that more incentives to replicate are needed to reap the fruits of rising transparency standards. |
| Keywords: | Replication,research transparency,generalizability |
| JEL: | A11 C18 |
| Date: | 2022 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:rwirep:939&r= |
| By: | Verónica Amarante (IECON, Universidad de la República, Uruguay); Marisa Bucheli (Departamento de Economía, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de la República, Uruguay); Mariana Rodríguez (Instituto de Economía, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración, Universidad de la República, Uruguay) |
| Abstract: | This article addresses the relationship between international research collaboration and the performance of researchers through the focus on a specific discipline -Economics- in a small developing country -Uruguay-. We map the collaboration between Uruguayan economists and non-local researchers and analyze the correlation between these collaborations and scholars’ achievements, as reflected by the quality of the publications included in Scopus-Elsevier. Our results confirm the positive and significant association between research collaboration and research output. Researchers from a developing country involved in international collaborations get a higher impact or quality of their research, but this result holds only when international collaborations involve researchers located in northern countries. |
| Keywords: | research networks, research output, bibliometrics |
| JEL: | A14 I23 |
| Date: | 2021–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ude:wpaper:1121&r= |
| By: | Sievertsen, Hans Henrik (University of Bristol); Smith, Sarah (University of Bristol) |
| Abstract: | Women's voices are likely to be even more absent from economic debates than headline figures on female under-representation suggest. Focusing on a panel of leading economists we find that men are more willing than women to express an opinion and are more certain and more confident in their opinions, including in areas where both are experts. Women make up 21 per cent of the panel but 19 per cent of the opinions expressed and 14 per cent of strong opinions. We discuss implications for the economics profession and for promoting a genuine diversity of views. |
| Keywords: | gender, economics profession |
| JEL: | A11 J16 |
| Date: | 2022–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp15133&r= |
| By: | Yaqub, Ohid; Malkov, Dmitry; Siepel, Josh |
| Abstract: | There is growing interest in the wider impact of research outside academia. In particular, there is concern about the extent to which the topic and principal beneficiaries of such impact can be foreseen before research is even funded. Does research impact tend to emerge largely as planned, or are eventual impacts unrecognisable from initial plans? To explore the unexpectedness of impact, we draw on one of the largest research impact assessment exercises in the world - the UK’s Research Excellence Framework. We exploit REF impact traced back to research funding applications, as a dataset of 2,194 case-grant pairs, to compare impact topics with funder remits. For 209 of those pairs, we directly compare their descriptions of ex-ante and ex-post impact. We found impact claims in these case-grant pairs are often congruent with each other, with 76% showing alignment. This indicates that, conditional on REF-inclusion, research delivers impact with largely the same orientation as envisaged at the outset of their projects. This is especially so when research is co-produced with focal stakeholders. These results offer a distinct complement to other preliminary studies on the REF, which have tended to emphasise the vast diversity and complexity of research impact. Our findings suggest that research impact is far from random, and that there is wide scope for policy intervention. In particular, we highlight the potentially important role that collaboration plays in setting the direction of research impact. However, the findings may also signal that the REF is preferentially excluding unpredicted impacts and indirect impacts. This selection effect, where a qualitatively different class of impacts are crowded out, may well be exacerbated as the share of REF rewards is weighted further towards the impact criterion. |
| Date: | 2022–03–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:qw873&r= |
| By: | Biermann, Marcus |
| Abstract: | This paper analyzes the consequences of the change in the presentation mode of seminars in economics triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the technology shock, the number of seminars held decreased by approximately 12 percent as seminars went from in person to online presentations. The composition of seminar speakers changed significantly. Three proxies of speakers’ quality suggest that leading top economists gained shares. The share of seminars held by women increased. The geography of knowledge dissemination shifted significantly as the distance between host and speaker institutions increased on average by 32 percent. The growing inequality in presentations among speakers is correlated with an increase in inequality in terms of citations. The results imply that working from home instead of travelling can decrease gender-specific inequality and increase inequality by productivity. |
| Keywords: | coronavirus; Covid-19 |
| JEL: | A10 F14 I23 J16 O33 |
| Date: | 2021–04–13 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ehl:lserod:114429&r= |