|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Bagues, Manuel F. (Aalto University); Sylos-Labini, Mauro (University of Pisa); Zinovyeva, Natalia (Aalto University) |
| Abstract: | In recent years the academic world has experienced a mushrooming of journals that falsely pretend to be legitimate academic outlets. We study this phenomenon using information from 46,000 researchers seeking promotion in Italian academia. About 5% of them have published in journals included in the blacklist of 'potential, possible, or probable predatory journals' elaborated by the scholarly librarian Jeffrey Beall. Data from a survey that we conducted among these researchers confirms that at least one third of these journals do not provide peer review or they engage in some other type of irregular editorial practice. We identify two factors that may have spurred publications in dubious journals. First, some of these journals have managed to be included in citation indexes such as Scopus that many institutions consider as a guarantee of quality. Second, we show that authors who publish in these journals are more likely to receive a positive evaluation when (randomly selected) scientific evaluators lack research expertise. Overall, our analysis suggests that the proliferation of 'predatory' journals may reflect the existence of severe information asymmetries in scientific evaluations. |
| Keywords: | scientific misconduct, academic evaluations |
| JEL: | I23 |
| Date: | 2017–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iza:izadps:dp11041&r=sog |
| By: | Nataliya N. Matveeva (National Research University Higher School of Economics); Oleg V. Poldin (National Research University Higher School of Economics) |
| Abstract: | The most common quantitative estimates of scientific performance are based on citation indices, and it is meaningful to identify what affects these indicators. In this work, we analyze the correlations between the citation characteristics of researchers and their co-authorship network parameters, which indicate the position of scientists in an academic network. To surpass the shortcoming of previous works we use a large sample and separate researchers by the year of their first citation. For constructing a co-authorship network, we used data about researchers from different disciplines, who have profiles in Google Scholar. The results of a count data regression model indicate that citations positively correlate with the number of co-authors, with position of the researcher in the co-authorship network (closeness centrality), and with the average number of co-author' citation. Also we reveal that the h-index and the i10-index are significantly associated with the number of co-authors and the average number of co-author citations. Based on these results, we can conclude that researchers who maintain more contacts and are more active than others have better bibliometric indicators on the average |
| Keywords: | co-authorship network; bibliometric analysis; Google Scholar; count data models |
| JEL: | A14 D83 Z13 |
| Date: | 2017 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hig:wpaper:44edu2017&r=sog |
| By: | Philipp Kohlgruber (University of Graz, Austria); Christoph Kuzmics (University of Graz, Austria) |
| Abstract: | We build an oligopoly model of the market of scientific journals that allows us to relate the (in-)efficiency of this market to the exogenous distribution of article quality. Journal quality is endogenously determined by the submission choices of scientists. The efficiency of any stable equilibrium depends crucially on the exogenous distribution of article quality, especially on the fatness of the upper tail. For the empirically plausible Pareto distribution the market is inefficient even in the limit as the number of publishers tends to infinity. |
| Keywords: | Oligopoly; Natural monopoly; Efficiency; Price competition; Endogenous product differentiation |
| JEL: | C72 C73 D43 L13 L15 L82 |
| Date: | 2017–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:grz:wpaper:2017-11&r=sog |
| By: | Orazbayev, Sultan |
| Abstract: | This document describes the data available through RePEc and related services: CitEc, CollEc, EDIRC, IDEAS, Genealogy and EconPapers. The document is purely descriptive, and is intended as a guide to some of the data available through RePEc on authors, institutions, collaborations, and networks. |
| Keywords: | RePEc; economists; bibliometrics |
| JEL: | A1 |
| Date: | 2017–10–15 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:81963&r=sog |