|
on Sociology of Economics |
|
Issue of 2008‒04‒29
six papers chosen by Jonas Holmström Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration |
| By: | Alberto Baccini; Lucio Barabesi |
| Abstract: | The exploratory analysis developed in this paper relies on the hypothesis that each editor possesses some power in the definition of the editorial policy of her journal. Consequently if the same scholar sits on the board of editors of two journals, those journals could have some common elements in their editorial policies. The proximity of the editorial policies of two scientific journals can be assessed by the number of common editors sitting on their boards. A database of all editors of ECONLIT journals is used. The structure of the network generated by interlocking editorship is explored by applying the instruments of network analysis. Evidences have been found of a compact network containing different components. This is interpreted as the result of a plurality of perspectives about the appropriate methods for the investigation of problems and the construction of theories within the domain of economics |
| Keywords: | Networks; Economic journals; Editorial boards; Interlocking editorship |
| JEL: | A |
| Date: | 2008–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:usi:wpaper:532&r=sog |
| By: | Juan J. Dolado; Florentino Felgueroso; Miguel Almunia |
| Abstract: | This paper describes the gender distribution of research fields in economics by means of a new dataset about researchers working in the world top-50 Economics departments, according to the rankings of the Econphd.net website. We document that women are unevenly distributed across fields and test some behavioral implications from theories underlying such disparities. Our main findings are that the probability that a woman works in a given field is positively related to the share of women in that field (path-dependence), and that the share of women in a field decreases with their average quality. These patterns, however, are weaker for younger female researchers. Further, we document how gender segregation of fields has evolved over different Ph.D. cohorts. |
| Date: | 2008–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:fda:fdaddt:2008-15&r=sog |
| By: | Ivan Cherkashin; Svetlana Demidova; Susumu Imai; Kala Krishna |
| Abstract: | There is little work on the inner workings of journals. What factors seem to affect the ability to publish in a journal? Could simple rules (which are already used by some journals) like the immediate rejection of a significant minority of papers, help to streamline the process? At what cost? How well do journals seem to do in choosing papers? What can we say about the extent of type 1 and type 2 errors? Do editors seem to have uniform standards or are some harsher than others? We use data on submissions to the Journal of International Economics to help answer these questions. |
| JEL: | F0 |
| Date: | 2008–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:13957&r=sog |
| By: | Nicolas van Zeebroeck (Centre Emile Bernheim, Solvay Business School, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels.); Bruno van Pottelsberghe (Centre Emile Bernheim, Solvay Business School, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, DULBEA, Université Libre de Bruxelles and ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles.); Dominique Guellec (OECD -DSTI, Paris.) |
| Abstract: | The sharp increase in academic patenting over the past 20 years raises important issues regarding the generation and diffusion of academic knowledge. Three key questions may be raised in this respect: What is behind the surge in academic patenting? Does patenting affect the quality and quantity of universities' scientific output? Does the patent system limit the freedom to perform academic research? The present paper summarizes the existing literature on these issues. The evidence suggests that academic patenting has only limited effects on the direction, pace and quality of research. A virtuous cycle seems to characterise the patent-publication relationship. Secondly, scientific anti-commons show very little effects on academic researchers so far, limited to a few countries with weak or no research exemption regulations. In a nutshell, the evidence leads us to conclude that the benefits of academic patenting on research exceed their potential negative effects. |
| Keywords: | Patent systems, Research Exemption, Academic Patenting. |
| JEL: | O31 O34 O50 |
| Date: | 2008–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:sol:wpaper:08-013&r=sog |
| By: | Paul Carlin (Department of Economics, Indiana Unviersity-Purdue University Indianapolis); Michael Kidd; Patrick Rooney (Department of Economics, Indiana Unviersity-Purdue University Indianapolis); Brian Denton |
| Abstract: | The paper contributes to the growing literature on wage determination within academia. The data arise from a pay-equity study carried out in a single Midwestern U.S. university over the 1996-7 academic year. The focus is upon understanding differences between male-female pay, and in particular why females earn approximately 20% less than their male counterparts. Do gender differences in the balance between research, teaching and service hold the key? Econometric results suggest that objective measures of productivity and subjective peer review ratings both play a significant role in male earnings determination. Interestingly academic productivity, however measured, fails to plays a significant role in the female wage specifications. |
| Keywords: | Gender, Earnings Gap, Productivity |
| JEL: | J3 J7 |
| Date: | 2007–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iup:wpaper:wp200703&r=sog |
| By: | Colander, David C. |
| Abstract: | This paper asks the question: Why has the “general-to-specific” cointegrated VAR approach as developed in Europe had only limited success in the US as a tool for doing empirical macroeconomics, where what might be called a “theory comes first” approach dominates? The reason this paper highlights is the incompatibility of the European approach with the US focus on the journal publication metric for advancement. Specifically, the European “general-to specific” cointegrated VAR approach requires researcher judgment to be part of the analysis, and the US focus on a journal publication metric discourages such research methods. The US “theory comes first” approach fits much better with the journal publication metric. |
| Keywords: | Incentives, empirical work, econometrics, methodology, cointegration, VAR |
| JEL: | B4 |
| Date: | 2008 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:ifwedp:7213&r=sog |