nep-sog New Economics Papers
on Sociology of Economics
Issue of 2021‒05‒31
five papers chosen by
Jonas Holmström
Axventure AB

  1. Leadership in Scholarship: Editors’ Appointments and the Profession’s Narrative By Ali Sina Onder; Sergey V. Popov; Sascha Schweitzer
  2. Field Distance and Quality in Economists’ Collaborations By Ali Sina Onder; Sascha Schweitzer; Hakan Yilmazkuday
  3. A Generation of Italian Economists By Nano, Enrico; Panizza, Ugo; Viarengo, Martina
  4. Plan S: An Economist's Perspective By Armstrong, Mark
  5. Collaboration in Bipartite Networks, with an Application to Coauthorship Networks By Hsieh, Chih-Sheng; König, Michael; Liu, Xiaodong; Zimmermann, Christian

  1. By: Ali Sina Onder (University of Portsmouth); Sergey V. Popov (Cardiff Business School and HSE University); Sascha Schweitzer (University of Bayreuth)
    Abstract: Academic journals disseminate new knowledge, and therefore can influence the direction and composition of ongoing research by choosing what to publish. We study the change in the topic structure of papers published in the American Economic Review (AER) after the appointments of editors and coeditors of the AER between 1985 and 2011 using a textual analysis of accepted publications. We compare AER’s topic structure to that of the other top general interest journals. The appointment of new AER editors, while accompanied by a minor co-movement of AER topics towards topics of editors’ post-appointment publications, is not an indicator of editors’ personal taste in topics, but rather indicates the desire of those who appoint editors to premediate trends in other Top 5 journals.
    Keywords: Academia; Knowledge Dissemination; Journals; Editors; Publications; Latent Dirichlet Allocation; Topic Analysis.
    JEL: A11 A14 O3
    Date: 2021–05–19
  2. By: Ali Sina Onder (University of Portsmouth); Sascha Schweitzer (University of Bayreuth); Hakan Yilmazkuday (Florida International University)
    Abstract: We analyze economics PhDs’ collaborations in peer-reviewed journals from 1990 to 2014 and investigate such collaborations’ quality in relation to each co-author’s research quality, field and specialization. We find that a greater overlap between co-authors’ previous research fields is significantly related to a greater publication success of co-authors’ joint work and this is robust to alternative specifications. Co-authors that engage in a distant collaboration are significantly more likely to have a large research overlap, but this significance is lost when co-authors’ social networks are accounted for. High quality collaboration is more likely to emerge as a result of an interaction between specialists and generalists with overlapping fields of expertise. Regarding interactions across subfields of economics (interdisciplinarity), it is more likely conducted by co-authors who already have interdisciplinary portfolios, than by co-authors who are specialized or starred in different subfields.
    Keywords: Collaboration; Distance; Team Formation; Research Productivity; Fields of Economics; Stratification; Specialization
    JEL: A11 A14 I23
    Date: 2021–05–19
  3. By: Nano, Enrico (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva); Panizza, Ugo (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva); Viarengo, Martina (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva)
    Abstract: We examine the role of financial aid in shaping the formation of human capital in economics. Specifically, we study the impact of a large merit-based scholarship for graduate studies in affecting individuals' occupational choices, career trajectories, and labor market outcomes of a generation of Italian economists with special focus on gender gaps and the role of social mobility. We construct a unique dataset that combines archival sources and includes microdata for the universe of applicants to the scholarship program and follow these individuals over their professional life. Our unique sample that focuses on the high end of the talent and ability distribution also allows us to analyze the characteristics of top graduates, a group which tends to be under-sampled in most surveys. We discuss five main results. First, women are less likely to be shortlisted for a scholarship as they tend to receive lower scores in the most subjective criteria used in the initial screening of candidates. Second, scholarship winners are much more likely to choose a research career and this effect is larger for women. Third, women who work in Italian universities tend to have less citations than men who work in Italy. However, the citation gender gap is smaller for candidates who received a scholarship. Fourth, women take longer to be promoted to the rank of full professor, even after controlling for academic productivity. Fifth, it is easier to become a high achiever for individuals from households with a lower socio-economic status if they reside in high social mobility provinces. However, high-achievers from lower socio-economic status households face an up-hill battle even in high social mobility provinces.
    Keywords: human capital formation, financial aid, career trajectories, gender gaps
    JEL: I22 I24 J16 J24
    Date: 2021–05
  4. By: Armstrong, Mark
    Abstract: Many scholarly journals charge high prices to research libraries and generate high profits. Open access regulation, in its various forms, can mitigate this problem. This essay examines a particular policy, "Plan S", which aims broadly to require regulated authors to publish their research in open access journals, which among other drawbacks of the policy greatly limits their publishing options.
    Keywords: Scholarly journals; open access; two-sided markets; regulation; Plan S
    JEL: D42 H41 I23 L13 L50
    Date: 2021–05
  5. By: Hsieh, Chih-Sheng; König, Michael; Liu, Xiaodong; Zimmermann, Christian
    Abstract: This paper studies the impact of collaboration on research output. First, we build a micro-founded model for scientific knowledge production, where collaboration between researchers is represented by a bipartite network. The equilibrium of the game incorporates both the complementarity effect between collaborating researchers and the substitutability effect between concurrent projects of the same researcher. Next, we develop a Bayesian MCMC procedure to estimate the structural parameters, taking into account the endogenous matching of researchers and projects. Finally, we illustrate the empirical relevance of the model by analyzing the coauthorship network of economists registered in the RePEc Author Service.
    Keywords: bipartite networks; coauthorship networks; economics of science; research collaboration; Spillovers
    JEL: C31 C72 D85 L14
    Date: 2020–08

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.