nep-sog New Economics Papers
on Sociology of Economics
Issue of 2010‒04‒17
five papers chosen by
Jonas Holmström
Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration

  1. A Matching Model of the Academic Publication Market By Besancenot, Damien; Huynh, Kim; Vranceanu, Radu
  2. Ranking Scientists By Burgos, Albert
  3. Grading Standards in Education Departments at Universities By Cory Koedel
  4. What Makes a Good Conference? Analysing the Preferences of Labor Economists By Borghans, Lex; Romans, Margo; Sauermann, Jan
  5. The Organization, Economics and Policy of Scientific Research. What we do know and what we don't know By Antonelli Cristiano; Geuna Aldo; Franzoni Chiara

  1. By: Besancenot, Damien (Centre d'Economie de l'Université Paris Nord (CEPN) and Université Paris 13); Huynh, Kim (Laboratoire d'économie moderne (LEM) and Université Paris 2); Vranceanu, Radu (ESSEC Business School)
    Abstract: Given the myriad of journal titles in economics and business administration, scholars can sometimes target the wrong journal. This paper provides a dynamic analysis of the market for academic publications that brings into the picture this type of informational friction. The key modelling device is a paper-to-journal matching function, similar to the matching function traditional in labor economics. An equilibrium is defined as a situation where both editors and authors implement their optimal publication strategies. The model is then solved for the equilibrium submission fee, desk rejection rate and ratio between the number of editors and the number of authors.
    Keywords: Academic Journals; Editors; Imperfect Information; Matching
    JEL: A14 C78
    Date: 2010–02
  2. By: Burgos, Albert (Departamentos y Servicios::Departamentos de la UMU::Fundamentos del Análisis Económico)
    Abstract: Purpose: I provide a framework to construct rankings of scientists based on journal articles and their citations. Design/Methodology/Approach: I assume a model in which the quantity and the impact of publications are economic goods and scientific committees derive utility from them. The committees’s utility is therefore defined on the set of ordered pairs of the type (k, ck ) interpreted as “the kth most important publication of a given author has ck cites.” Within this framework, I derive the performance measure induced by utility maximization. Findings: I prove that when quantity and impact are perfect substitutes, the induced performance index is the w-index in Woeginger (2008a) [“An axiomatic characterization of the Hirsch-index,” Mathematical Social Sciences, 56, 224—232.] In the case where quantity and impact are perfect complementaries, the induced performance index is the well known h-index in Hirsch (2005) [ “An index to quantify an individual scientific research output,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102 (46), 16569—16572.] Finally, when preferences are of Cobb-Douglas type, i.e. the trade off between quantity and impact equals the ratio between papers and cites, the induced index is Komulski’s 2007) maxprod index [“MAXPROD—A new index for assesment of the scientific output of an individual, and a comparison with the h-index,” International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics, and Bibliometrics,, 11 (1).] Research limitations: The analysis of this model does not include some widely extended measures, as the criteria of average citations per paper. Originality/Value: This model allows for a re-examination in terms of academic preferences of some scientific impact measures. Conversely, the model can help ranking designers to fit the needs of the institution using the ranking by first calibrating a utility function and then find the ranking induced by this utility.
    Keywords: Research productitvity, Impact, Performance index, Utility maximization
    JEL: D12 R23
    Date: 2010–02
  3. By: Cory Koedel (Department of Economics, University of Missouri-Columbia)
    Abstract: This paper documents a startling difference in the grading standards between education departments and other academic departments at universities – undergraduate students in education classes receive significantly higher grades than students in all other classes. This phenomenon cannot be explained by differences in student quality or structural differences across departments (i.e., differences in class sizes). Drawing on evidence from the economics literature, the differences in grading standards between education and non-education departments imply that undergraduate education majors, the majority of whom become teachers, supply substantially less effort in college than non-education majors. If the grading standards in education departments were brought in line with those of other major academic departments, student effort would be expected to increase by at least 10-16 percent.
    Keywords: Grading Standards, Grade Inflation, Grading Standards in Departments of Education, Teacher Training
    JEL: I20 I23
    Date: 2010–02–01
  4. By: Borghans, Lex (Maastricht University); Romans, Margo (ROA, Maastricht University); Sauermann, Jan (ROA, Maastricht University)
    Abstract: Conferences are an important element in the work of researchers, requiring substantial investments in fees, travel expenses and the time spent by the participants. The aim of this paper is to identify the preferences of participants with respect to conference characteristics. Based on a sample of European labour economists, preferences are measured using the vignette approach where participants are asked to choose between hypothetical European Association of Labour Economists (EALE) conferences. We find that the keynote speakers are the most important element in the preference for a conference, followed by the location of the conference. There is substantial heterogeneity in the taste of labour economists especially with respect to location, though the link between preference parameters and measured characteristics like gender, age and seniority is limited. Factor analysis suggests that the variety in preferences can be best described by a latent variable that reflects the weights people put on content versus fun.
    Keywords: conference participation, economics profession, vignette-method, random-coefficients model
    JEL: A11 J44 C25
    Date: 2010–04
  5. By: Antonelli Cristiano (University of Turin); Geuna Aldo (University of Turin); Franzoni Chiara
    Date: 2010–04

This nep-sog issue is ©2010 by Jonas Holmström. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.