nep-sog New Economics Papers
on Sociology of Economics
Issue of 2015‒09‒05
five papers chosen by
Jonas Holmström
Axventure AB

  1. Recent trends in co-authorship in economics: evidence from RePEc By Rath, Katharina; Wohlrabe, Klaus
  2. Star Wars: The Empirics Strike Back By Abel Brodeur; Mathias Lé; Marc Sangnier; Yanos Zylberberg
  3. Collaborating with People Like Me: Ethnic Coauthorship within the United States By Freeman, Richard Barry; Huang, Wei
  4. Do academics doubt their own research? By Lee Stapleton
  5. Geography of academic careers and formation of scientific collaborations: a case study on mathematics By Bastien Bernela

  1. By: Rath, Katharina; Wohlrabe, Klaus
    Abstract: This articles investigates the recent trends in co-authorship in economics. Using data from more than 700.000 journal articles we show that the average number of authors per article has increased over the last years. This process is likely to be continued in the future. In a regression analysis we present evidence how the authorship of papers is related to the number of citations, the JEL classification, the number of journal pages and the length of the title.
    Keywords: co-authorship, economics, trends, RePEc
    JEL: A12 A14
    Date: 2015–08–17
  2. By: Abel Brodeur (Department of Economics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON); Mathias Lé (Paris School of Economics and ACPR); Marc Sangnier (Aix-Marseille Univ. (Aix-Marseille School of Economics), CNRS & EHESS); Yanos Zylberberg (School of Economics Finance and Management, University of Bristol)
    Abstract: Journals favor rejection of the null hypothesis. This selection upon tests may distort the behavior of researchers. Using 50,000 tests published between 2005 and 2011 in the AER, JPE, and QJE, we identify a residual in the distribution of tests that cannot be explained by selection. The distribution of p-values exhibits a two humped camel shape with abundant p-values above 0.25, a valley between 0.25 and 0.10, and a bump slightly below 0.05. The missing tests (with p-values between 0.25 and 0.10) can be retrieved just after the 0.05 threshold and represent 10% to 20% of marginally rejected tests. Our interpretation is that researchers might be tempted to inflate the value of those just-rejected tests by choosing a significant specification. We propose a method to measure this residual and describe how it varies by article and author characteristics.
    Keywords: Hypothesis testing, distorting incentives, selection bias, research in economics
    JEL: A11 B41 C13 C44
    Date: 2015
  3. By: Freeman, Richard Barry; Huang, Wei
    Abstract: By examining the ethnic identity of authors in over 2.5 million scientific papers written by US-based authors from 1985 to 2008, we find that persons of similar ethnicity coauthor together more frequently than predicted by their proportion among authors. The greater homophily is associated with publication in lower-impact journals and with fewer citations. Meanwhile, papers with authors in more locations and with longer reference lists get published in higher-impact journals and receive more citations. These findings suggest that diversity in inputs by author ethnicity, location, and references leads to greater contributions to science as measured by impact factors and citations.
    Date: 2015
  4. By: Lee Stapleton (SPRU (Science Policy Research Unit), School of Business, Management & Economics, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9SL, U.K.)
    Abstract: When do experts doubt or question their own previously published research and why? An online survey was designed and distributed across academic staff and postgraduate research students at different universities in Great Britain. Respondents (n = 202 - 244) identified the likelihoods of six different (quasi) hypothetical occurrences causing them to doubt or question work they have published in peer reviewed journals. They are: two objective and two semi-objective citation based metrics, plus two semi- objective metrics based on verbalised reactions. Only limited support is found from this study to suggest that the authors of primary research would agree with any judgements made by others about their research based on these metrics. The occurrence most likely to cause respondents to doubt or question their previously published research was where the majority of citing studies suggested mistakes in their work. In a multivariate context, only age and nationality are significant determinants of doubt beyond average likelihoods. Understanding and acknowledging what makes authors of primary research doubt their own research could increase the validity of those who pass judgement.
    Keywords: citations; criticism; experts; meta-analysis; peers; systematic reviews
    Date: 2015–08
  5. By: Bastien Bernela (CRIEF - Centre de Recherche sur l'Intégration Economique et Financière - Université de Poitiers)
    Abstract: This paper interests in the relation between the geography of academic careers and those of collaborations, from a case study of a French mathematics laboratory. The analysis of CVs, publications and interviews with ten full professors allows questioning jointly the progress of academic careers and the collaborative practices of scientific activity through co-authorship. The scientific community of mathematics has specific norms and conventions at the both level of mobility practice and collaboration behavior. The collective decision to ban tacitly local recruitment generates a high level of mobility in mathematicians' careers. Furthermore, the publication rhythm and the weight of collaborations are very heterogeneous, and their geography does not seem to depend on the geographical trajectories of professors. A qualitative focus on the most productive professor shows the very low influence of his affiliation and of his permanent location on his research.
    Abstract: L'article s'intéresse au lien entre géographie des carrières et des collaborations, à partir d'une étude de cas d'un laboratoire de mathématiques. L'analyse des CV, des publications et d'entretiens avec dix professeurs des Universités permet d'interroger conjointement le déroulement des carrières académiques et le caractère collaboratif de l'activité de recherche à travers le co-authorship d'articles scientifiques. La communauté scientifique des mathématiques présente des normes et conventions spécifiques tant au niveau du système de carrière et des pratiques de mobilité que des comportements de publication et de collaboration. La prise de décision de la communauté mathématique d'interdire-de manière tacite-les recrutements locaux implique une forte mobilité des mathématiciens, que ce soit lors du recrutement des maîtres de conférences ou lors du passage au professorat. Par ailleurs, le rythme de publication et le poids des collaborations sont très hétérogènes et leur géographie dépend assez peu des trajectoires spatiales des professeurs. Un focus qualitatif sur le professeur le plus produisant du laboratoire montre l'impact quasi négligeable de son affiliation et de sa localisation permanente dans la pratique de sa recherche.
    Date: 2015–06–01

This nep-sog issue is ©2015 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.