nep-sog New Economics Papers
on Sociology of Economics
Issue of 2019‒01‒14
two papers chosen by
Jonas Holmström
Axventure AB

  1. On the Information Contents of Indirect Citations By Kim-Sau Chung; Meng-Yu Liang; Melody Lo
  2. Subject Pools and Deception in Agricultural and Resource Economic Experiments By Timothy N. Cason; Steven Y. Wu

  1. By: Kim-Sau Chung (HKBU); Meng-Yu Liang (Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan); Melody Lo (HKBU)
    Abstract: Suppose there are more researchers in the mainstream than in the fringe. If researchers have only partial appreciation of the research conducted by the other group, then a citation index that is increasing in both direct and indirect citations will bias in favor of mainstream researchers. To correct for such a bias, a citation index should be increasing in direct citations but decreasing in indirect citations. More indirect citations suggests that a researcher’s direct citations should be discounted more, because he is more likely to come from the mainstream, and many of those who cite him are also mainstream researchers with many direct citations.
    Keywords: : citations, research quality, index, influence
    JEL: A14 C43
    Date: 2018–12
  2. By: Timothy N. Cason; Steven Y. Wu
    Abstract: The use of student subjects and deception in experiments are two controversial issues that often raise concerns among editors and reviewers, which might prevent quality research from being published in agricultural and resource economics (ARE) journals. We provide a self-contained methodological discussion of these issues. We argue that field professionals are the most appropriate subjects for questions related to policy or measurement, and students are the most appropriate subjects for scientific research questions closely tied to economic theory. Active deception, where subjects are provided with explicitly misleading information, has been avoided in the mainstream economics discipline because it can lead to a loss of experimental control, lead to subject selection bias, and impose negative externalities on other researchers. Disciplinary ARE journals may want to abide by these norms against deception to maintain credibility. Interdisciplinary ARE journals may have more flexibility, although it is important to provide guidelines to avoid too much reviewer-specific variation in standards. For ARE researchers, we suggest employing a deception-free experimental design whenever possible because we know of no field in which deception is encouraged.
    JEL: C9 Q10 Q30 Q50
    Date: 2018–12

This nep-sog issue is ©2019 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.