Twentieth Century Publication Performance in Five Leading Economics Journals, a Comment

1995 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Golden ◽  
Fred Carstensen

This paper ranks the top thirty Ph.D.-awarding economics departments (out of a sample of over one hundred) by decade based upon both pages and numbers of articles published in five leading periodicals. These include the American Economic Review, Econometrica, Economic Journal, Journal of Political Economy, and the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Conclusions drawn are that several departments that have not ranked highly in recent publication studies performed strongly before 1950 and the home journal advantage of Chicago and Harvard has eroded over time. Also, only seven institutions appear in all nine publication lists.

2013 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Card ◽  
Stefano DellaVigna

How has publishing in top economics journals changed since 1970? Using a data set that combines information on all articles published in the top-five journals from 1970 to 2012 with their Google Scholar citations, we identify nine key trends. First, annual submissions to the top-five journals nearly doubled from 1990 to 2012. Second, the total number of articles published in these journals actually declined from 400 per year in the late 1970s to 300 per year most recently. As a result, the acceptance rate has fallen from 15 percent to 6 percent, with potential implications for the career progression of young scholars. Third, one journal, the American Economic Review, now accounts for 40 percent of top-five publications, up from 25 percent in the 1970s. Fourth, recently published papers are on average three times longer than they were in the 1970s, contributing to the relative shortage of journal space. Fifth, the number of authors per paper has increased from 1.3 in 1970 to 2.3 in 2012, partly offsetting the fall in the number of articles per year. Sixth, citations for top-five publications are high: among papers published in the late 1990s, the median number of Google Scholar citations is 200. Seventh, the ranking of journals by citations has remained relatively stable, with the notable exception of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which climbed from fourth place to first place over the past three decades. Eighth, citation counts are significantly higher for longer papers and those written by more coauthors. Ninth, although the fraction of articles from different fields published in the top five has remained relatively stable, there are important cohort trends in the citations received by papers from different fields, with rising citations to more recent papers in Development and International, and declining citations to recent papers in Econometrics and Theory. (JEL A14)


2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 231-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan B. Berk ◽  
Campbell R. Harvey ◽  
David Hirshleifer

The review process for academic journals in economics has grown vastly more extensive over time. Journals demand more revisions, and papers have become bloated with numerous robustness checks and extensions. Even if the extra resulting revisions do on average lead to improved papers—a claim that is debatable—the cost is enormous. We argue that much of the time involved in these revisions is a waste of research effort. Another cause for concern is the level of disagreement amongst referees, a pattern that suggests a high level of arbitrariness in the review process. To identify and highlight what is going right and what is going wrong in the reviewing process, we wrote to a sample of former editors of the American Economic Review, the Journal of Political Economy, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Econometrica, the Review of Economic Studies, and the Journal of Financial Economics, and asked them for their thoughts about what might improve the process. We found a rough consensus that referees for top journals in economics tend to make similar, correctable mistakes. The italicized quotations throughout this paper are drawn from our correspondence with these editors and our own experience. Their insights are consistent with our own experiences as editors at the Journal of Finance and the Review of Financial Studies. Our objective is to highlight these mistakes and provide a roadmap for how to avoid them.


2015 ◽  
Vol 70 (01) ◽  
pp. 45-56
Author(s):  
Nicolas Delalande

Abstract The interaction between economic analysis and political action is one of the major issues raised by Capital in the Twenty-First Century and by any work of political economy. However, the way this interaction works and changes over time is not always clear in Thomas Piketty’s book. This critical review, informed by history and political science, aims to open up three areas of discussion. Are redistributive tax policies a mere accident, produced by the chaotic history of the twentieth century, and, if so, what might their future be? On what grounds could capitalism’s tendency to create inequality be regulated in the absence of any alternative system? Finally, can deliberative democracy offer any solution, or has it already been profoundly weakened by the very economic processes that Piketty’s brings to the fore in his book? A political history of capital seems more essential than ever.


1978 ◽  
Vol 11 (04) ◽  
pp. 480-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles M. Bonjean ◽  
Jan Hullum

The rejection of manuscripts by journals is clearly the norm in the social sciences. For example, in 1976 about 700 manuscripts were submitted to theAmerican Economic Reviewand more than 500 were rejected; theAmerican Sociological Reviewrejected more than 500 of about 600 submitted; and of the 525 manuscripts reviewed by theAmerican Political Science Review, almost 500 were rejected. To be sure, these are the top journals in their disciplines; but other respectable journals display the same pattern for that year: theSouthern Economic Journalturned down well over 400 of the 500 manuscripts received; theSocial Science Quarterlyrejected about 425 of the almost 500 received; and theAmerican Journal of Political Sciencereceived about 320 and rejected 270. That a perusal of the editorial reports of other journals would yield comparable findings is documented by a survey of 72 economics journals which collectively reported a rejection rate of 77 percent.


2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 24-37
Author(s):  
Christian-Mathias Wellbrock

Das Thema der verzerrten Medienberichterstattung wird in der ökonomischen Literatur meist unter dem Begriff „Media Bias“ zusammengefasst. Der Beitrag gibt einen Überblick zum Stand der Forschung über Definitionen, Formen, Ursachen, Ansätze zur Messung sowie Folgen von Media Bias. Der Fokus liegt dabei auf hochrangigen internationalen wissenschaftlichen Fachzeitschriften im Bereich der Ökonomik, die in der letzten Dekade eine Vielzahl an Studien unmittelbar zu diesem Thema veröffentlicht haben (u. a. American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics). Über den Bericht des aktuellen Forschungsstands hinaus identifiziert der Beitrag thematische Schwerpunkte und zentrale Herausforderungen der bisherigen Forschung und benennt Felder für zukünftige Forschung.


Slavic Review ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 566-590
Author(s):  
Patryk Babiracki

Engaging with regional, international, and spatial histories, this article proposes a new reading of the twentieth-century Polish past by exploring the vicissitudes of a building known as the Upper Silesia Tower. Renowned German architect Hans Poelzig designed the Tower for the 1911 Ostdeutsche Ausstellung in Posen, an ethnically Polish city under Prussian rule. After Poland regained its independence following World War I, the pavilion, standing centrally on the grounds of Poznań’s International Trade Fair, became the fair's symbol, and over time, also evolved into visual shorthand for the city itself. I argue that the Tower's significance extends beyond Posen/Poznań, however. As an embodiment of the conflicts and contradictions of Polish-German historical entanglements, the building, in its changing forms, also concretized various efforts to redefine the dominant Polish national identity away from Romantic ideals toward values such as order, industriousness, and hard work. I also suggest that eventually, as a material structure harnessed into the service of socialism, the Tower, with its complicated past, also brings into relief questions about the regional dimensions of the clashes over the meaning of modernity during the Cold War.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 569-578
Author(s):  
Filippo Reale

AbstractThe article traces the remains of the theory of “comparative institutional advantage”, which was crucial during the early development of the “varieties of capitalism” approach to economics but fell into oblivion quickly afterwards. It follows the discussions of the concept over time and works out possible reasons – theoretical, methodological, and discursive – for the theory's decay. In conclusion, many arguments of the theory seem outdated today but it is a great witness to thezeitgeistof comparative political economy and institutional theory of the millennium.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document