Menu Expand
  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch
  4. Vol. 119, Issue 4
  5. pp. 531–559

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Meyer, D. Publishing articles - Findings and open questions of an empirical study conducted among editors of economic journals. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, 119(4), 531-559. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.119.4.531
Meyer, Dirk "Publishing articles - Findings and open questions of an empirical study conducted among editors of economic journals" Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch 119.4, 1999, 531-559. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.119.4.531
Meyer, Dirk (1999): Publishing articles - Findings and open questions of an empirical study conducted among editors of economic journals, in: Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, vol. 119, iss. 4, 531-559, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.119.4.531
Format
Download

Publishing articles - Findings and open questions of an empirical study conducted among editors of economic journals

Meyer, Dirk

Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. 119 (1999), Iss. 4 : pp. 531–559

Read Now Download (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.119.4.531
Language
Multiple languages
Pages
29

Meyer, Dirk

References

  1. Blank, R. M. (1991), The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from the American Economic Review, The American Economic Review 81, 1041-1067.  Google Scholar
  2. Blankart, B. (1975), Mikroökonomische Ansätze zur Messung des wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Forschungsoutputs, Konjunkturpolitik 21, 148-169.  Google Scholar
  3. Bös, D. (1998), Gedanken zum Refereesystem in ökonomischen wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften, in: F. Baltzarek, F. Butschek u. G. Tichy (eds.), Von der Theorie zur Wirtschaftspolitik - ein österreichischer Weg. Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von E. W. Streissler, Stuttgart, 47-72.  Google Scholar
  4. Borchardt, K. (1978), Wissenschaftliche Literatur als Medium wissenschaftlichen Fortschritts, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 193, 481-499.  Google Scholar
  5. Conroy, M. E., Dusansky, R., Drukker, D., Kildegaard, A. (1995), Communication, Journal of Economic Literature 33, 1966-1971.  Google Scholar
  6. Deaton, A., Guesnerie, R., Hansen, L.P., Kreps, D. (1987), The Econometric Society Annual Reports, 1986 - Econometrica Operating Procedures, Econometrica 55, 204-206.  Google Scholar
  7. Fölster, S. (1995), The Perils of Peer Reviews in Economics and Other Sciences, Evolutionary Economics 5, 43-57.  Google Scholar
  8. Gans, J. S., Shepherd, G. B. (1994), How are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 165-179.  Google Scholar
  9. Grubel, H. G., Boland, L. A. (1986), On the Efficient Use of Mathematics in Economics: Some Theory, Facts and Results of an Opinion Survey, Kyklos 39, 419-442.  Google Scholar
  10. Hamermesh, D. S. (1994), Facts and Myths about Refereeing, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 153-163.  Google Scholar
  11. Hamilton, D. P. (1990), Publisling by- and for? - the Numbers, Science 250, 1331-1332.  Google Scholar
  12. Hamilton, D. P. (1991), Research Papers: Who’s Uncited Now?, in: Science, Vol. 251, pp. 25.  Google Scholar
  13. Holub, H. W., Tappeiner, G., Eberharter, V. (1991), The Iron Law of Important Articles, Southern Economic Journal 58, 317-328.  Google Scholar
  14. Holub, H. W. (1993), Die Literaturflut in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften und ihre Folgen, WiSt 22, 203-207.  Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn, Th. S. (1973), Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen, (Original: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), Frankfurt.  Google Scholar
  16. Laband, D. N. (1985a), Publishing Favoritism: A Critique of Department Rankings Based on Quantitative Publishing Performance, Southern Economic Journal 52, 510-515.  Google Scholar
  17. Laband, D. N. (1985b), An Evaluation of 50 ‘Ranked’ Economics Departments - By Quantity and Quality of Faculty Publications and Graduate Student Placement and Research Success, Southern Economic Journal 52, 216-240.  Google Scholar
  18. Laband, D. N. (1990), Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics? Preliminary Evidence from Authors, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 55, 341-352.  Google Scholar
  19. Laband, D. N., Piette, M. J. (1994a), The Relative Impacts of Economics Journals: 1970-1990, Journal of Economic Literature 32, 640 - 666.  Google Scholar
  20. Laband, D. N., Piette, M. J. (1994b), Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behaviour of Journal Editors, Journal of Political Economics 102, 194-203.  Google Scholar
  21. Laband, D. N., Piette, M. J. (1994c), Does the ‘Blindness’ of Peer Review Influence Manuscript Selection Efficiency?, Southern Economic Journal 60, 896 - 906.  Google Scholar
  22. MeDowell, J. M., Melvin, M. (1983), The Determinants of Co-Authorship: An Analysis of the Economics Literature, The Review of Economics and Statistics 65, 155-160.  Google Scholar
  23. Meyer, D. (2000), On the Information and Selection Function of Economic Articles - Claims and Reality, will be published in the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics.  Google Scholar
  24. Neilson, W. S. (1997), 1996 Editor’s Report, Economic Inquiry 35, X- XI.  Google Scholar
  25. Oster, S. (1980), The Optimal Order for Submitting Manuscripts, The American Economic Review 70, 444-448.  Google Scholar
  26. Peters, D. P., Ceci, S. J. (1980), A Manuscript Masquerade, The Sciences 20, 16-19 and 35.  Google Scholar
  27. Pindyck, R. S., Rubinfeld, D.L. (1995), Microeconomics, 3. ed., Englewood Cliffs.  Google Scholar
  28. Pommerehne, W. W. (1986), Die Reputation wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Fachzeitschriften: Ergebnisse einer Befragung deutscher Ökonomen, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 201, 280-306.  Google Scholar
  29. Prosi, G. (1971), Ökonomische Theorie des Buches, Düsseldorf.  Google Scholar
  30. Rätzer, E. (1984), Institutionelle Ursachen der geringen ökonomischen Forschungsaktivität im deutschsprachigen Raum, Kyklos 37, 223-246.  Google Scholar
  31. Sauer, R. D. (1988), Estimates of the Returns to Quality and Coauthorship in Economic Academia, Journal of Political Economy 96, 855 - 866.  Google Scholar
  32. Siegfried, J. J., White, K.J. (1973), Financial Rewards to Research on Teaching: A Case Study of Academic Economists, The American Economic Review 63, 309-315.  Google Scholar
  33. Yohe, G. W. (1980), Current Publication Lags in Economics Journals, Journal of Economic Literature 18, 1050-1055.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Publishing articles in journals is an important part of the scholarly communication process. Articles not only serve to rapidly disseminate (new) knowledge (information), they also influence the career opportunities of researchers (selection) since their reputation is determined first and foremost by the quality and quantity of their publications. The objectives of this study are to shed light on the publication process, in particular refereeing, and then discuss possible problems such as the time factor and the reliability of the process. The empirical basis of this study consists of a questionnaire completed by editors of economic journals and an experiment in which duplicates of previously published manuscripts were submitted a second time under a pseudonym.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Dirk Meyer: Publishing articles -\rFindings and open questions of an empirical study\rconducted among editors of economic journals 531
1. Manuscript, article, journal - players and interests 531
2. Supply pressure or demand pull? 535
2.1 A question arising from the torrent of articles 535
2.2 Manuscript backlog, publication rate, article reduction requirements 540
2.3 Complaints about the quality of submitted manuscripts 542
2.4 Active manuscript acquisition 543
2.5 Lack of financial control 543
3. Reviewing procedures 546
3.1 Reliability of selection procedures - impressions of a masquerade 546
3.2 Selection of the review process - pros and cons 549
3.3 Who decides whether to accept or reject a manuscript? 551
3.4 Time factor 552
3.5 'Stewing in their own juice* 554
4. Summary 555
References 557
Zusammenfassung 559
Abstract 559

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.