nep-sog New Economics Papers
on Sociology of Economics
Issue of 2016‒03‒06
three papers chosen by
Jonas Holmström
Axventure AB

  1. Pluralism in the Market of Science? A citation network analysis of economic research at universities in Vienna By Florentin Gloetzl; Ernest Aigner
  2. Taking the Temperature: A Meta-Ranking of Economics Journals By Wohlrabe, Klaus
  3. Unraveling Scientific Impact By Stremersch, S.; Camacho, N.M.A.; Vanneste, S.; Verniers, I.W.J.

  1. By: Florentin Gloetzl (Vienna University of Economics and Business, Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria); Ernest Aigner (Vienna University of Economics and Business, Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria)
    Abstract: Pluralism has become a central issue not only in the public discourse but also in heterodox economics, as the focus on impact factors and rankings based on citations continues to increase. This marketization of science has been an institutional vehicle for the economic mainstream to promote its ideas. Citations thus have become a central currency in economics as a discipline. At the same time they allow to investigate patterns in the discourse. Analyzing articles published by the two major economics departments and the more interdisciplinary Department for Socioeconomics in Vienna, this paper is novel in applying both bibliometric techniques and citation network analysis on the department level. We find that (1) Articles in heterodox journals strongly reference the economic mainstream, while the mainstream does not cite heterodox journals, (2) Articles written by researchers of the Department of Socioeconomics cite more heterodox journals irrespective of whether they are published in mainstream or heterodox journals, (3) The economics departments display a citation network exhibiting a clear ‘mainstream core – heterodox periphery’ structure, as Dobusch & Kapeller (2012b) suggest the overall discourse in economics to be, while the Department of Socioeconomics could be described as a plural though not pluralistic department with many distinct modules in the network , reflecting various disciplines, topics and schools of thought.
    Date: 2015–11
  2. By: Wohlrabe, Klaus
    Abstract: We construct a meta–ranking of 315 economics journals based on 38 different individual rankings. Our ranking incorporates both bibliometric measures from three different databases (Web of Knowledge, RePEc and Google Scholar) and previous rankings in the literature. Furthermore, we account for the different scaling of all bibliometric measures by standardizing each ranking score. Finally, we aggregate all rankings using a double–weighting algorithm which corrects for incomplete lists. In our meta–ranking the top five journals are given by: Quarterly Journal of Economics, Journal of Political Economy, Econometrica, American Economic Review and Journal of Economic Literature.
    Keywords: Meta-Ranking, Economics Journals, Aggregation,Citations, RePEc, Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge
    JEL: A12 A14
    Date: 2016–01–20
  3. By: Stremersch, S.; Camacho, N.M.A.; Vanneste, S.; Verniers, I.W.J.
    Abstract: The number of citations a paper receives is the most commonly used measure of scientific impact. In this paper, we study not only the number but also the type of citations that 659 marketing articles generated. We discern five citation types: application, affirmation, negation, review and perfunctory mention (i.e., citing an article only indirectly without really using it). Prior literature in scientometrics recognizes that the former three types, on average, signal a higher level of scientific indebtedness than the latter two types. In our sample, these three types of citation represent only 15% of all citations. We also find different determinants of citation behavior across citation types. Across the 49 determinants we included, only 13 have the same effect across all citation types, of which only 5 are statistically significant across all citation types. For instance, we find a significant inverted U-effect of challenging commonly held beliefs on citations counts, but only for three of the citation types: affirmation, review and perfunctory mention. Our results encourage scientific stakeholders to move beyond mere citation counts to assess a paper’s or a scholar’s scientific contribution, as well as to devote greater attention to the citation process itself.
    Keywords: science, citation, scientometrics, philosophy of science, marketing, innovation
    Date: 2014–10–17

This nep-sog issue is ©2016 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.