|
on Sociology of Economics |
|
Issue of 2014‒05‒04
five papers chosen by Jonas Holmström Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration |
| By: | Schupp, Claudia; Wache, Benjamin |
| Abstract: | Bei dem vorliegenden Artikel handelt es sich um eine Analyse des wissenschaftlichen Einflusses der deutschsprachigen Wirtschaftsforschungsinstitute hinsichtlich ihrer Working Paper und Policy Papers Series. Dazu wurden Statistiken über die Anzahl der Zitierungen der Veröffentlichungsreihen zusammengetragen, Indikatoren berechnet und schlussendlich die Institute in einem Ranking verglichen. Im Ergebnis zeigt sich, dass das Deutsche Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung in Berlin sowohl bei den Working Paper als auch bei den Policy Paper den Rang 1 belegt. |
| Keywords: | Wirtschaftsforschungsinstitute, Ranking, RePEc |
| JEL: | A10 |
| Date: | 2014–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:55519&r=sog |
| By: | Ho Fai Chan; Bruno S. Frey; Jana Gallus; Markus Schaffner; Benno Torgler; Stephen Whyte |
| Abstract: | External prominence (measured by the number of pages indexed on search engines or TED talk invitations) can be capitalized on the speakers' market while research performance (measured by publication and citation indicators) cannot. There is thus a clear distinction between the capitalization of external and internal prominence. Success through authorship of books is also positively correlated with speaking fees, however once we control for external prominence the statistical significance disappears. We find that academics profit from having been awarded a major book prize. |
| Keywords: | Academic Performance; Scholarly Importance; Market for Economists; Social Importance of Economists; External and Internal Influence; Book Prizes; TED Talks |
| JEL: | A11 A13 Z18 Z19 |
| Date: | 2013–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cra:wpaper:2013-18&r=sog |
| By: | Wolfgang Stroebe |
| Abstract: | The belief that science is a young person’s game and that only young scientists can be productive and publish highquality research is still widely shared by university administrators and members of the scientific community. Since the average age of university faculties is increasing not only in the United States but also in Europe, the question arises as to whether this belief is correct. If it were valid, the abolition of compulsory retirement in the United States and some parts of Canada would lower the productivity of these university systems. To address this question, this article reviews research on the association of age and scientific productivity conducted during the last four decades in North America and Europe. Whereas early research typically showed a decline in productivity after the ages of 40 to 45 years, this decline has been absent in more recent studies. Explanations for this change are discussed. |
| Keywords: | academic productivity; scientific achievement; age discrimination; creative potential |
| Date: | 2014–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cra:wpaper:2014-06&r=sog |
| By: | Armstrong, Mark |
| Abstract: | Traditionally, the scholarly journal market operates so that research institutions are charged high prices and the wider public is often excluded altogether, while authors can usually publish for free and commercial publishers enjoy high profits. Two forms of open access regulation can mitigate these problems: (i) direct price regulation of the form whereby a journal must charge a price of zero to all readers, or (ii) mandating authors or publishers to make freely available an inferior substitute to the published paper. The former policy is likely to result in authors paying to publish, which may lead to a reduction in the quantity of published papers and may make authors less willing to publish in selective journals. Recent UK policy towards open access is discussed. |
| Keywords: | Publishing, journals, open access, two-sided markets, regulation |
| JEL: | D83 I23 L17 L51 L86 |
| Date: | 2014–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:55488&r=sog |
| By: | Benjamin Krebs; Joel O'Neill |
| Abstract: | University rankings are often used as indicators for university quality by scholars and policy makers. The main indicators common to all well-established rankings are the number of publications in well-known journals, and the citation frequency of these publications. In this paper we take a closer look at such rankings. We state, that they suffer from three major deficiencies: first, none of the main indicators relate input (i.e. funding) to output; second, no university ranking provides information about the marginal productivity of universities and third, the established rankings may bias the focus of academics and university leaders onto rank instead of actual university quality. In contrast to the third deficiency, the first and second have received scarce attention. Thus, we adjust two of the most recognized rankings for Swiss universities by relating research output to the respective university budget. Our adjusted rankings show quite a different picture: While larger universities lead the unadjusted rankings, they find themselves at the bottom of the adjusted rankings, i.e. the original rankings are almost completely inverted. Our results show, that the first deficiency of standard rankings is severe but can be cured easily. This also has important consequences for the second deficiency about which we can, however, only speculate. |
| Date: | 2014–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cra:wpaper:2014-02&r=sog |