|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Moustafa, Khaled |
| Abstract: | Multiple inherent biases related to different citation practices (for e.g., self-citations, negative citations, wrong citations, multi-authorship-biased citations, honorary citations, circumstantial citations, discriminatory citations, selective and arbitrary citations, etc.) make citation-based bibliometrics strongly flawed and defective measures. A paper can be highly cited for a while (for e.g., under circumstantial or transitional knowledge), but years later it may appear that its findings, paradigms, or theories were untrue or invalid anymore. By contrast, a paper may remain shelved or overlooked for years or decades, but new studies or discoveries may actualize its subject at any moment. As citation-based metrics are transformed into "commercial activities," the "citation credit" should be considered on a commercial basis too, in the sense that "citation credit" should be shared out as a "citation dividend" by shareholders (coauthors) averagely or proportionally to their contributions but not fully appropriated by each of them. At equal numbers of citations, the greater number of authors, the lower "citation credit" should be and vice versa. Overlooking the presence of distorted and subjective citation practices makes many people and administrators "obsessed" with the number of citations to such an extent to run after "highly cited" authors and to create specialized citation databases for commercial purposes. Citation-based bibliometrics, however, are unreliable and unscientific measures; citation counts do not mean that a more cited work is of a higher quality or accuracy than a less cited work because citations do not measure the quality or accuracy. Citations do not mean that a highly cited author or journal is more commendable than a less cited author or journal. Citations are not more than countable numbers: no more, no less. |
| Date: | 2018–03–29 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:arabix:gn8zb&r=all |
| By: | Gruener, Sven |
| Abstract: | Clinical studies and economic experiments are often conducted with randomized controlled trials. In clinical studies, power calculations are carried out as a standard. But what’s about economic experiments? After describing the basic idea of the calculation procedure, I tackle the practice of sample size calculations in the realm of experimental economics by considering the publications of 5 economic journals in the period 2000–2018. These are two top-ranked economic journals (Quarterly Journals of Economics and American Economic Review), the leading field journals in the area of experimental economics (Experimental Economics) and behavioral sciences (Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization), and a leading field journal in environmental economics (Environmental and Resource Economics). In contrast to clinical drug trials, sample size calculations have rarely been carried out by experimental economists. But the number of power calculations has slightly increased in recent years, especially in the leading journals of economics. However, this can be partly explained by the fact that field experiments (in which scholars pay more attention to power analyses than in lab experiments these days) play an important role in these journals. |
| Date: | 2019–09–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:574he&r=all |
| By: | Allan Drazen; Anna Dreber Almenberg; Erkut Y. Ozbay; Erik Snowberg |
| Abstract: | Recent large-scale replications of social science experiments provide important information on the reliability of experimental research. Unfortunately, there exist no mechanisms to ensure replications are done. We propose such a mechanism: journal-based replication, in which the publishing journal contracts for a replication between acceptance and publication. We discuss what we learned from a proof-of-concept journal-based replication at the Journal of Public Economics. Our experience indicates that journal-based replication would be relatively straightforward to implement for laboratory experiments. |
| JEL: | A11 A14 C18 C92 |
| Date: | 2019–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:26444&r=all |
| By: | Abdelghani Maddi (CEPN - Centre d'Economie de l'Université Paris Nord - UP13 - Université Paris 13 - USPC - Université Sorbonne Paris Cité - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) |
| Abstract: | The issue of Open Access (OA) in research is attracting growing interest both within the scientific community and on the political scene. Some centers specializing in the production of science indicators now include OA indicators by institution. In its 2019 ranking, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) provides a ranking of institutions according to their share of open access publications. This gives an idea of the degree of openness of institutions. However, the fact of not taking into account the disciplinary specificities and the specialization of the institutions makes the rankings based on the shares of the OA publications biased. We show that open access publishing practices vary considerably by discipline. As a result, we propose two methods of normalization of OA share; by WoS subject categories and by OST disciplines. Normalization corrects OA's share taking into account disciplinary practices. This allows a better comparability of different actors. Abstract The issue of Open Access (OA) in research is attracting growing interest both within the scientific community and on the political scene. Some centers specializing in the production of science indicators now include OA indicators by institution. In its 2019 ranking, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) provides a ranking of institutions according to their share of open access publications. This gives an idea of the degree of openness of institutions. However, the fact of not taking into account the disciplinary specificities and the specialization of the institutions makes the rankings based on the shares of the OA publications biased. We show that open access publishing practices vary considerably by discipline. As a result, we propose two methods of normalization of OA share; by WoS subject categories and by OST disciplines. Normalization corrects OA's share taking into account disciplinary practices. This allows a better comparability of different actors. |
| Keywords: | ranking,institution,normalisation,Open Access,bibliometrics |
| Date: | 2019–10–23 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:cepnwp:hal-02328158&r=all |
| By: | Moustafa, Khaled |
| Abstract: | Objectivity and fairness are important characteristics of the scientific enterprise. However, the academic field is stuffed with many peculiarities that blemish it, such as the reliance on biased bibliometrics (journal impact factor, number of citations), cover letters, recommendation letters, etc. Recommendation letters and referees’ opinions can be helpful in some cases but they are personal appreciations that differ from one individual to another and, hence, should be used with caution or not at all as they can be easily influenced by different and changing factors to the detriment of objectivity and honesty. |
| Date: | 2018–07–22 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:arabix:ep9b2&r=all |
| By: | Moustafa, Khaled |
| Abstract: | To reduce the bias in peer review, the peer review should be either fully open, so that all the parties involved in (authors and reviewers) are known to each other or, alternatively, wholly blinded where the identities of all the parties are undisclosed to each other. As such, the peer review would be symmetrical for all peers; otherwise the term “peer” in ‘peer review’ would not make much sense because “peer” means “equal” involving “equal” treatment. |
| Date: | 2018–01–30 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:arabix:879z2&r=all |
| By: | Moustafa, Khaled |
| Abstract: | Scientific journals ask authors to put their manuscripts, at the submission stage, sometimes in a complex style and a specific pagination format that are time consuming while it is unclear yet that the submitted manuscripts will be accepted. In the case of rejections, authors need to submit to another journal most likely with a different style and formatting that require additional work and time. To save authors’ time, publishers should allow authors to submit their manuscripts in any format and to comply with the style required by the targeted journal only in revised versions, but not at the submission step when the manuscripts are not yet approved for publication. |
| Date: | 2018–05–23 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:arabix:kh6bm&r=all |
| By: | Moustafa, Khaled |
| Abstract: | A wide gap between academic education and ethical conducts is perceptible in many research and scientific activities. Basically, scientists with high academic degrees are expected to behave ethically but unfortunately this is not always the case. Scientific research in the Arab world is sometimes challenged with many flaws and shortcomings such as the lack of ethics, effectiveness and well-defined investment strategies. The academic environment is also entangled with invidiousness, selfishness, and overwhelming bureaucracy in an obvious and paradoxical way with the Arab culture that emphasizes ethics. Unethical symptoms are ranging from trivial bad behaviors, such as the absence of basic communication ethics and nonresponse to formal requests or emails to more serious misconducts in research and medical practices. The objectives of science and research programs in many Arab institutions are directed toward artificial and superficial prestige more than toward real and local scientific and socio-economic developments. To alleviate such issues, Arab scientists and policymakers need to deeply rethink the way research and development policies are currently planned and performed with particular focus on local priorities with the highest ethical and methodological values considered. |
| Date: | 2018–07–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:arabix:bcp5f&r=all |
| By: | Moustafa, Khaled |
| Abstract: | A strong trend to move from print to online publication is largely perceived in scientific and nonscientific fields. A growing number of publishers increasingly opt for online publication as an option or a compulsory alternative. From readers’ perspective, this is a highly appreciated facility, but from the author’s, things are different mainly because of excessive article processing charges (APC) that make the open access system sometimes as a hindrance for many authors but a lucrative enterprise for many shareholders, enticing the most traditional and conservative publishers |
| Date: | 2018–05–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:arabix:rta5p&r=all |
| By: | Moustafa, Khaled |
| Abstract: | Nature has recently published a Correspondence claiming the absence of fame biases in the editorial choice. The topic is interesting and deserves a deeper analysis than it was presented because the reported brief analysis and its conclusion are somewhat biased for many reasons, some of them are discussed here. Since the editorial assessment is a form of peer-review, the biases reported on external peer-reviews would, thus, apply to the editorial assessment, too. The biases would be proportional to the elitist level of a journal; the more elitist a journal, the more biased its decisions, unavoidably. The bias could be intentional or unintentional, conscious or subconscious, reflecting our imperfect human nature. |
| Date: | 2018–03–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:arabix:vyt79&r=all |