| 来源类型 | Working Paper |
| 规范类型 | 报告 |
| DOI | 10.3386/w26614 |
| 来源ID | Working Paper 26614 |
| Is Scholarly Refereeing Productive (at the Margin)? | |
| Aboozar Hadavand; Daniel S. Hamermesh; Wesley W. Wilson | |
| 发表日期 | 2020-01-06 |
| 出版年 | 2020 |
| 语种 | 英语 |
| 摘要 | In economics many articles are subjected to multiple rounds of refereeing at the same journal, which generates time costs of referees alone of at least $50 million. This process leads to remarkably longer publication lags than in other social sciences. We examine whether repeated refereeing produces any benefits, using an experiment at one journal that allows authors to submit under an accept/reject (fast-track or not) or the usual regime. We evaluate the scholarly impacts of articles by their subsequent citation histories, holding constant their sub-fields, authors’ demographics and prior citations, and other characteristics. There is no payoff to refereeing beyond the first round and no difference between accept/reject articles and others. This result holds accounting for authors’ selectivity into the two regimes, which we model formally to generate an empirical selection equation. This latter is used to provide instrumental estimates of the effect of each regime on scholarly impact. |
| 主题 | Other ; General, Teaching ; Health, Education, and Welfare ; Education |
| URL | https://www.nber.org/papers/w26614 |
| 来源智库 | National Bureau of Economic Research (United States) |
| 引用统计 | |
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/584287 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Aboozar Hadavand,Daniel S. Hamermesh,Wesley W. Wilson. Is Scholarly Refereeing Productive (at the Margin)?. 2020. |
| 条目包含的文件 | ||||||
| 文件名称/大小 | 资源类型 | 版本类型 | 开放类型 | 使用许可 | ||
| w26614.pdf（279KB） | 智库出版物 | 限制开放 | CC BY-NC-SA | 浏览 | ||
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
