|
on Sociology of Economics |
|
Issue of 2010‒05‒22
six papers chosen by Jonas Holmström Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration |
| By: | Abrevaya, Jason (University of Texas at Austin); Hamermesh, Daniel S. (University of Texas at Austin) |
| Abstract: | Using a very large sample of matched author-referee pairs, we examine how the gender of referees and authors affects the former's recommendations. Relying on changing matches of authors and referees, we find no evidence of gender differences among referees in charitableness toward authors; nor do we find any effect of the interaction between the referees’ and authors' gender. With substantial research showing gender differences in fairness, the results suggest that an ethos of objectivity can overcome tendencies toward same-group favoritism/opposite-group discrimination. |
| Keywords: | discrimination, gender, academe |
| JEL: | J71 |
| Date: | 2010–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp4921&r=sog |
| By: | David L. Anderson (Queen's University); John Tresler (University of Waikato) |
| Abstract: | In this study we test various citation-based journal weighting schemes, especially those based on the Liebowitz and Palmer methodology, as to their suitability for use in a nation- wide research funding model. Using data generated by New Zealand’s academic economists, we compare the performance of departments, and individuals, under each of our selected schemes; and we then proceed to contrast these results with those generated by direct citation counts. Our findings suggest that if all citations are deemed to be of equal value, then schemes based on the Liebowitz and Palmer methodology yield problematic outcomes. We also demonstrate that even between weighting schemes based on a common methodology, major differences are found to exist in departmental and individual outcomes. |
| Keywords: | economics departments; research output; citations; impact factors |
| JEL: | A19 C81 J24 |
| Date: | 2010–05–13 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wai:econwp:10/03&r=sog |
| By: | Natalia Zinovyeva; Manuel F. Bagues |
| Abstract: | This paper analyzes whether academic promotions are affected by the gender of evaluators and candidates. The identification strategy exploits the random assignment mechanism that was used in Spain between 2002 and 2006 in order to select the members of promotion committees. Results are mixed. In competitions to associate professor positions, female applicants are significantly less likely to be promoted when they are assigned to a committee with a relatively larger share of female evaluators. On the contrary, in competitions to full professor positions the opposite is true. Information from publications data suggests that female candidates are discriminated by female evaluators when they apply to associate professor positions and by male evaluators when they apply to full professor positions. The evidence indicates that the source of these biases is preference-based. |
| Date: | 2010–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:fda:fdaddt:2010-15&r=sog |
| By: | Jeon, Doh-Shin; Rochet, Jean-Charles |
| Abstract: | More and more academic journals adopt an open-access policy, by which articles are accessible free of charge, while publication costs are recovered through author fees. We study the consequences of this open access policy on a journal’s quality standard. If the journal’s objective was to maximize social welfare, open access would be optimal as long as the positive externalities generated by its diffusion exceed the marginal cost of distribution. However, we show that if an open access journal has a different objective (such as maximizing readers’ utility, the impact of the journal or its profit), it tends to choose a quality standard below the socially efficient level. |
| JEL: | D42 L42 L82 |
| Date: | 2009–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tse:wpaper:21922&r=sog |
| By: | Pedro Albarrán; Ignacio Ortuño; Javier Ruiz-Castillo |
| Abstract: | Albarrán et al. (2009a) introduced a novel methodology for the evaluation of citation distributions consisting of a pair of high- and a low-impact measures defined over the set of articles with citations below or above a critical citation level CCL. Albarrán et al. (2009b) presented the first empirical applications to a situation in which the world citation distribution in 22 scientific fields is partitioned into three geographical areas: the U.S., the European Union, and the rest of the world. In this paper, we compare our results with those obtained with average-based indicators. For reasonable CCLs, such as the 80th percentile of the world citation distribution in each field, the cardinal differences between the results obtained with our high-impact index and the mean citation rate are of a large order of magnitude. When, in addition, the percentage in the top 5% of most cited articles or the percentage of uncited articles are used, there are still important quantitative differences with respect to the high- and low-impact indicators advocated in our approach when the CCL is fixed at the 80th or the 95th percentile |
| Date: | 2010–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cte:werepe:we10_10&r=sog |
| By: | Jeon, Doh-Shin; Menicucci, Dominico |
| Abstract: | Electronic academic journal websites provide new services of text and/or data mining and linking, indispensable for efficient allocation of attention among abundant sources of scienti c information. Fully realizing the benefi t of these services requires interconnection among websites. Motivated by CrossRef, a multilateral citation linking backbone, this paper performs a comparison between multilateral interconnection through an open platform and bilateral interconnection, and finds that publishers are fully interconnected in the former regime while they can be partially interconnected in the latter regime for exclusion or differentiation motives. Surprisingly, if partial interconnection arises for differentiation motive, exclusion of small publisher(s) occurs more often under multilateral interconnection. We also find that in the case of multilateral interconnection, a for-pro fit platform induces less exclusion than an open platform. Various other extensions are analyzed. |
| JEL: | D4 K21 L41 L82 |
| Date: | 2009–10–30 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tse:wpaper:21966&r=sog |