Is Peer Review in Decline?

Over the past decade there has been a decline in the fraction of papers in top economics journals written by economists from the highest-ranked economics departments. This paper documents this fact and uses additional data on publications and citations to assess various potential explanations. Several observations are consistent with the hypothesis that the Internet improves the ability of high-profile authors to disseminate their research without going through the traditional peer-review process.

Environmental and Ecological Economics: A Citation Analysis

This study looks at two distinct questions: What have been the most influential journal articles in environmental economics over the ten year period 1994-2003? and, how much overlap is there between the fields of environmental and ecological economics? We examine the references in all articles published in JEEM and Ecological Economics (EE) over this period. For each of these two fields, a list of the top articles and top journals cited by articles published in JEEM and EE is presented. We also present some results based on our study of the ISI Journal Citation Reports. We find that there is a significant overlap between the two fields at the journal level - the two journals cite similar journals. There is a correlation of 0.34 between the number of citations received by the journals that are most cited and the correlation is even higher if journal self-citation is excluded. The main differences are that ecological economics tends to cite (but not be cited by) general natural science journals more often than environmental economics does, environmental economics cites more heavily from journals rather than other publications, and citations in environmental economics are more concentrated on particular journals and individual publications. However, there is much less similarity at the level of individual articles. Non-market valuation articles dominate the most cited articles in JEEM while green accounting, sustainability, and environmental Kuznets curve are all prominent topics in EE.

Citation Success: Evidence from Economic History Journal Publications

This study analyses determinants of citation success among authors publishing in economic history journals. Bibliometric features, like article length and number of authors, are positively correlated with the citation rate up to a certain point. Remarkably, publishing in top-ranked journals hardly affects citations. In regard to author-specific characteristics, male authors, full professors and authors working economics or history departments, and authors employed in Anglo-Saxon countries, are more likely to get cited than others. As a ‘shortcut’ to citation success, we find that research diffusion, measured by number of presentations and people mentioned in acknowledgement, boosts the citation rate.bibliometrics; citation analysis; citation success; economic history; scientometrics; Poisson regression

Making Sense of Entrepreneurship Journals: Journal Rankings and Strategy Choices

Dozens of peer-reviewed, English language journals are currently published in our field. How ought we to evaluate them? This paper seeks to answer this question. To do so, we utilize both relevant literature and data on Entrepreneurship journals. The literature derives from both information science and other research areas that reflect on their journals. The data derives from six citation measures from Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. We find 59 currently published English language, peer reviewed journals in Entrepreneurship. Contestable judgments based on their impact measures suggest that one of these 59 could be considered as “A+, four as “A”, five as “AB”, eight as “B”, four as “BC”, 23 as “C”, thirteen as “barely detectable”, and one as “insufficient data but promising”. Journal rankings affect the resources and prestige accorded to business schools, disciplines and subdisciplines, and individual scholars. However, the need to fit evaluations to school strategy implies that no rating system, ours included, is definitive. Multiple measures are needed, letter grades are misleading, and journal rankings should match the institution’s strategy and priorities in stakeholder service. A wider purpose of this study is to alert readers to the range of current methodologies and the limits of conventional rankings. Our conclusions appear innocuous, but standard practice is to use restrictive measures, to employ letter grades, and to prioritize only one stakeholder: scholars. These practices are poorly suited to the Entrepreneurship field

Is Peer Review in Decline?

Over the past decade, there has been a decline in the fraction of papers in top economics journals written by economists from the highest-ranked economics departments. This paper documents this fact and uses additional data on publications and citations to assess various potential explanations. Several observations are consistent with the hypothesis that the Internet improves the ability of high-profile authors to disseminate their research without going through the traditional peer-review process. (JEL A14, O30)National Science Foundation (U.S.) (SES-0550897)Toulouse Network for Information TechnologyInstitute for Advanced Study (Princeton, N.J.

A Bibliometrics Portrait of Chinese Research through the Lens of China Economic Review. A research proposal.

Notwithstanding, in the last two decades, there has been a noticeable increase in published work on the research field of Chinese economy. There are few studies, which analyze the evolution of Chinese economics research, and the weight of international economics within it, by resorting to objective methods, namely bibliometrics. Giving our focus on Chinese economics related research, we select to base our empirical analysis on the “seed journal” China Economic Review (CER), which is the most important economic journal especially concerned with the issues of Chinese economy. We classify and assess all the (522) articles that were published in CER from its genesis (1989) up to December 2010. We construct three main databases: the first database as bibliographic database that contains the more than 500 articles published in CER, where we classify articles by themes (such as Macroeconomics, Microeconomics and International Economics) and types(such as formal vs. empirical); the second database includes the references of those 500 articles, which we denominate ‘roots of Chinese economics research’; and the third database, the ‘influence of Chinese economics research’, where we have all the studies that cited (more than 3000 references) the 500 articles published in CER. By undertaking an exploratory statistical analysis on the three databases - bibliographic database, ‘roots’ database and ‘influence’ database, we are able to assess three main group of issues: 1) the importance, within Chinese economics of the topic ‘international economic’; the types of research that are pursued in the period of analysis (formal vs empirical); and the most prolific authors in the area; 2) the ‘roots’ of Chinese economics, that is, who and which outlets are influencing most Chinese economics research; 3) the scope of influence of Chinese economics literature.Evolution of research, Economics, Bibliometrics, China Economic Review

A Conversation with Leo Goodman

Leo A. Goodman was born on August 7, 1928 in New York City. He received his A.B. degree, summa cum laude, in 1948 from Syracuse University, majoring in mathematics and sociology. He went on to pursue graduate studies in mathematics, with an emphasis on mathematical statistics, in the Mathematics Department at Princeton University, and in 1950 he was awarded the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees. His statistics professors at Princeton were the late Sam Wilks and John Tukey. Goodman then began his academic career as a statistician, and also as a statistician bridging sociology and statistics, with an appointment in 1950 as assistant professor in the Statistics Department and the Sociology Department at the University of Chicago, where he remained, except for various leaves, until 1987. He was promoted to associate professor in 1953, and to professor in 1955. Goodman was at Cambridge University in 1953--1954 and 1959--1960 as visiting professor at Clare College and in the Statistical Laboratory. And he spent 1960--1961 as a visiting professor of mathematical statistics and sociology at Columbia University. He was also a research associate in the University of Chicago Population Research Center from 1967 to 1987. In 1970 he was appointed the Charles L. Hutchinson Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, a title that he held until 1987. He spent 1984--1985 at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford. In 1987 he was appointed the Class of 1938 Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, in the Sociology Department and the Statistics Department. Goodman's numerous honors include honorary D.Sc. degrees from the University of Michigan and Syracuse University, and membership in the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/08-STS276 the Statistical Science (http://www.imstat.org/sts/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

A comparison of the scientific performance of the U.S. and the European Union at the turn of the 21st century.

In this paper, scientific performance is identified with the impact that journal articles have through the citations they receive. In 15 disciplines, as well as in all sciences as a whole, the EU share of total publications is greater than that of the U.S. However, as soon as the citations received by these publications are taken into account the picture is completely reversed. Firstly, the EU share of total citations is still greater than the U.S. in only seven fields. Secondly, the mean citation rate in the U.S. is greater than in the EU in every one of the 22 fields studied. Thirdly, since standard indicators—such as normalized mean citation ratios—are silent about what takes place in different parts of the citation distribution, this paper compares the publication shares of the U.S. and the EU at every percentile of the world citation distribution in each field. It is found that in seven fields the initial gap between the U.S. and the EU widens as we advance towards the more cited articles, while in the remaining 15 fields—except for Agricultural Sciences—the U.S. always surpasses the EU when it counts, namely, at the upper tail of citation distributions. Finally, for all sciences as a whole the U.S. publication share becomes greater than that of the EU for the top 50% of the most highly cited articles. The data used refers to 3.6 million articles published in 1998–2002, and the more than 47 million citations they received in 1998–2007Research performance; Citation analysis; Scientific ranking; European paradox;