nep-sog New Economics Papers
on Sociology of Economics
Issue of 2021‒05‒24
four papers chosen by
Jonas Holmström
Axventure AB

  1. Fifty Shades of QE: Conflicts of Interest in Economic Research By Fabo, Brian; Jancokova, Martina; Kempf, Elisabeth; Pástor, Lubos
  2. Concentration of power at the editorial boards of economics journals By Lorenzo Ductor; Bauke Visser
  3. When a coauthor joins an editorial board By Lorenzo Ductor; Bauke Visser
  4. Reducing the precarity of academic research careers By OECD

  1. By: Fabo, Brian; Jancokova, Martina; Kempf, Elisabeth; Pástor, Lubos
    Abstract: Central banks sometimes evaluate their own policies. To assess the inherent conflict of interest, we compare the research findings of central bank researchers and academic economists regarding the macroeconomic effects of quantitative easing (QE). We find that central bank papers report larger effects of QE on output and inflation. Central bankers are also more likely to report significant effects of QE on output and to use more positive language in the abstract. Central bankers who report larger QE effects on output experience more favorable career outcomes. A survey of central banks reveals substantial involvement of bank management in research production.
    Keywords: career concerns; central bank; Conflict Of Interest; QE; Quantitative easing
    JEL: A11 E52 E58 G28
    Date: 2020–11
  2. By: Lorenzo Ductor (University of Granada); Bauke Visser (Erasmus University Rotterdam)
    Abstract: Evolutionary arguments and incentive theory point to the importance of variety and rotation of editorial board members to stimulate innovative research. Using a unique dataset covering more than 100 economics journals over the period 1990-2011, we document trends in the incidence of multiple positions, editorial duration and institutional background for more than 6,100 board members. We put these figures into perspective using the literature on boards of directors and measures of market concentration. The picture that emerges is of a discipline with a high concentration of institutional and individual power, especially at the more prestigious journals. Evidence suggests this indeed matters: there is a strong negative association between editorial duration and journal impact.
    Keywords: editorial boards, journals, concentration, power, busyness, impact
    JEL: A11 A14 O31
    Date: 2021–05–17
  3. By: Lorenzo Ductor (University of Granada); Bauke Visser (Erasmus University Rotterdam)
    Abstract: Using novel and large-scale data at the individual level, we find that an author publishes more articles when a coauthor joins an editorial board, both in the "coauthor's'" journal and in other journals. This effect is larger, the less experienced the author is, and disappears quickly once the coauthor leaves the journal's board. Of the hypotheses that we consider to explain these patterns, the signalling hypothesis is a strong contender. It argues that the temporary increase in status of the coauthor improves the plight of the author as it improves the inference that editorial boards make about the author's underlying quality. Only the favoritism hypothesis can explain that, especially at journals with low board turnover, articles published during a coauthor's stint on the editorial board receive less citations than articles published during other years.
    Keywords: editorial boards, networks, collaboration, coauthor
    JEL: A11 A14 D71 I26 J44 O30
    Date: 2021–05–17
  4. By: OECD
    Abstract: This report analyses academic research careers, with a focus on the “research precariat”, defined as postdoctoral researchers holding fixed-term positions without permanent or continuous employment prospects. It identifies policies and practices that aim to improve researchers’ well-being, develop more diverse, equitable and inclusive research systems, attract and retain the best talent in academia, and ultimately improve the quality of science. The report presents a conceptual framework and synthesis of available data and policy information. It draws on a survey of OECD countries that included country notes and interviews with policy officials, funders, representatives of research performing organisations and researchers. It offers recommendations and a set of policy options to improve working conditions and professional development, better link funding to human resource policies, make governance more inclusive, promote equal opportunities and diversity, improve human resource management, promote inter-sectoral and international mobility, and develop the evidence base on research careers.
    Date: 2021–05–20

This nep-sog issue is ©2021 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.