nep-sog New Economics Papers
on Sociology of Economics
Issue of 2021‒11‒08
five papers chosen by
Jonas Holmström
Axventure AB

  1. Peer Effects in Academic Research: Senders and Receivers By Clément Bosquet; Pierre-Philippe Combes; Emeric Henry; Thierry Mayer
  2. The Impact of Research Independence on PhD Students' Careers: Large-scale Evidence from France By Sofia Patsali; Michele Pezzoni; Fabiana Visentin
  3. The long-term effect of research grants on the scientific output of university professors By Hussinger, Katrin; Carvalho, João N.
  4. Paving the Road for Replications: Experimental Results from an Online Research Repository By Tom Coupé; W. Robert Reed; Christian Zimmerman
  5. How should evaluation be? Is a good evaluation of research also just? Towards the implementation of good evaluation By Cinzia Daraio; Alessio Vaccari

  1. By: Clément Bosquet (SERC - Spatial Economic Research Center - LSE - London School of Economics and Political Science); Pierre-Philippe Combes (GREQAM - Groupement de Recherche en Économie Quantitative d'Aix-Marseille - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales, ECON - Département d'économie (Sciences Po) - Sciences Po - Sciences Po - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, CEPR - Center for Economic Policy Research - CEPR); Emeric Henry (ECON - Département d'économie (Sciences Po) - Sciences Po - Sciences Po - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, CEPR - Center for Economic Policy Research - CEPR); Thierry Mayer (ECON - Département d'économie (Sciences Po) - Sciences Po - Sciences Po - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)
    Abstract: Using an instrument based on a national contest in France determining researchers' location, we find evidence of peer effects in academia, when focusing on precise groups of senders (producing the spillovers) and receivers (benefiting from the spillovers), defined based on field of specialisation, gender and age. These peer effects are shown to exist even outside formal co-authorship relationships. Furthermore, the match between the characteristics of senders and receivers plays a critical role. In particular, men benefit a lot from peer effects provided by men, while all other types of gender combinations produce spillovers twice as small.
    Keywords: Economics of Science,Peer Effects,Research Productivity,Gender Publication Gap
    Date: 2019–11–01
  2. By: Sofia Patsali (Université Côte d'Azur, France; CNRS, GREDEG); Michele Pezzoni (Université Côte d'Azur, France; CNRS, GREDEG); Fabiana Visentin (Maastricht University; UNU-MERIT)
    Abstract: This study investigates the effect of research independence during the PhD period on students' career outcomes. We use a unique and detailed dataset on the French population of STEM PhD students who graduated between 1995 and 2013. To measure research independence, we compare the PhD thesis content with the supervisor's research. We employ advanced neural network text analysis techniques evaluating the similarity between student's thesis abstract and supervisor's publications during the PhD period. After exploring which characteristics of the PhD training experience and supervisor explain the level of research similarity, we estimate how similarity associates with the likelihood of pursuing a research career. We find that the student thesis's similarity with her supervisor's research work is negatively associated with starting a career in academia and patenting probability. Increasing the PhD-supervisor similarity score by one standard deviation is associated with a 2.1 percentage point decrease in the probability of obtaining an academic position and a 0.57 percentage point decrease in the probability of patenting. However, conditional on starting an academic career, PhD-supervisor similarity is associated with a higher student's productivity after graduation as measured by citations received, network size, and probability of moving to a foreign or US-based affiliation.
    Keywords: Research independence, Early career researchers, Scientific career outcomes, Neural network text analysis
    JEL: D22 O30 O33 O38
    Date: 2021–10
  3. By: Hussinger, Katrin; Carvalho, João N.
    Abstract: A major source of research funding for university professors are competitive research grants. With focus on Luxembourg, we present results from a difference-in-difference analysis which show that research grants by the Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR), the central research funding agency in Luxembourg, increase the scientific output of university professors by 31% which corresponds to one additional publication. We further show that the scientific output drops again around five years after the grant receipt. However, we find that those university professors who realize a quality increase of their journal publications in the years following the grant receipt benefit from a long-lasting publication quality effect.
    Keywords: competitive research grants,university professors,scientific output,difference-in-difference estimation
    JEL: I23 O38
    Date: 2021
  4. By: Tom Coupé (University of Canterbury); W. Robert Reed (University of Canterbury); Christian Zimmerman
    Abstract: Are users of a bibliographic database interested in learning about replications? Can we motivate them to learn? To answer these questions, we performed an experiment on a RePEc (Research Papers in Economics) website: Using randomized stratification, we allocated 324 replications and their corresponding original studies to clusters; we then drew from those clusters to select treatment and control groups. We added brightly colored tabs to the relevant webpages to alert visitors to the existence of a replication study or to the original study of a replication. We monitored traffic over three phases lasting several months: a) no treatment, b) treatment on one group, c) treatment on both groups. We find a statistically significant increase in visits to replication pages, but the effect is small: Click-throughs to the replications occurred only 1% to 1.6% of the time.
    Keywords: Replications, RePEc, Experiment, Online Research Repository, Webpages, Click-throughs
    JEL: A11 B41 Z00
    Date: 2021–10–01
  5. By: Cinzia Daraio; Alessio Vaccari
    Abstract: In this paper we answer the question of how evaluation should be by proposing a good evaluation of research practices. A good evaluation of research practices, intended as social practices a la MacIntyre, should take into account the stable motivations and the traits of the characters (i.e. the virtues) of researchers. We also show that a good evaluation is also just, beyond the sense of fairness, as working on good research practices implies keep into account a broader sense of justice. After that, we propose the development of a knowledge base for the assessment of 'good' evaluations of research practices to implement a questionnaire for the assessment of researchers' virtues. Although the latter is a challenging task, the use of ontologies and taxonomic knowledge, and the reasoning algorithms that can make inferences on the basis of such knowledge represents a way for testing the consistency of the information reported in the questionnaire and to analyze in a correct and coherent way the data gathered through it.
    Keywords: research evaluation; research practices; virtue ethics; good evaluation; fair evaluation; just evaluation; ontology-based modelling; questionnaire.
    Date: 2021–11–02

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.