Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

An examination of the reliability of prestigious scholarly journals: evidence and implications for decision-makers

By Andrew J. Oswald


In universities all over the world, hiring and promotion committees regularly hear the argument: “this is important work because it is about to appear in prestigious journal X”. Moreover, those who allocate levels of research funding, such as in the multi-billion pound Research Assessment Exercise in UK universities, often come under pressure to assess research quality in a mechanical way by using journal prestige ratings. This paper’s results suggest that such tendencies are dangerous. It uses total citations over a quarter of a century as the criterion. The paper finds that it is far better to publish the best article in an issue of a medium-quality journal like the Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics than to publish the worst article (or often the worst 4 articles) in an issue of a top journal like the American Economic Review. Implications are discussed

Topics: ZA, LB2300
Publisher: University of Warwick, Department of Economics
Year: 2006
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (1998). Assessing the Social Sciences: The Use of Advanced Bibliometric Methods as a Necessary Complement to Peer Review, doi
  2. (1998). Do Academic Salaries Decline with Seniority?, doi
  3. (1990). Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics? Preliminary Evidence from Authors, doi
  4. (1994). Using Citations to Measure Sex-Discrimination in Faculty Salaries,
  5. (2005). Using ISI Data in the Analysis of
  6. (2000). What Do We Say about Ourselves and What Does it Mean? Yet Another Look at Economics Department Research, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.