|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Mai, Nhat Chi |
| Abstract: | IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers. |
| Date: | 2022–05–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:osfxxx:bsxhr&r= |
| By: | Olivier Chanel; Alberto Prati; Morgan Raux |
| Abstract: | We provide an estimate of the environmental impact of the recruitment system in the economics profession, known as the "international job market for economists". Each year, most graduating PhDs seeking jobs in academia, government, or companies participate in this job market. The market follows a standardized process, where candidates are pre-screened in a short interview which takes place at an annual meeting in Europe or in the United States. Most interviews are arranged via a non-profit online platform, econjobmarket.org, which kindly agreed to share its anonymized data with us. Using this dataset, we estimate the individual environmental impact of 1,057 candidates and one hundred recruitment committees who attended the EEA and AEA meetings in December 2019 and January 2020. We calculate that this pre-screening system generated the equivalent of about 4,000 tons of avoidable CO2-eq and a comprehensive economic cost over e3.5 million. We contrast this overall assessment against three counterfactual scenarios: a more efficient in-person system, a hybrid system (where videoconference is used for some candidates) and a fully online system (as it happened in 2020-21 due to the COVID-19 pandemic). Overall, the study can offer useful information to shape future recruitment standards in a more sustainable way. |
| Keywords: | job market for economists, international job market, carbon footprint, environmental impact, comprehensive economic cost |
| Date: | 2021–12–15 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cep:cepdps:dp1819&r= |
| By: | Bak-Coleman, Joseph B (University of Washington); Mann, Richard P.; West, Jevin; Bergstrom, Carl T. |
| Abstract: | Replication surveys are becoming a common tool for assessing the knowledge production of scientific disciplines. In psychology, economics, and preclinical cancer biology, replication rates near 50% have been argued as evidence the disciplines are not reliably producing knowledge, are rife with questionable research practices, and warrant reform. Concerns over failed replications have eroded faith in science, with claims that the vast majority of published research is false. However, these claims are often made under the assumption that effect sizes are fixed and point null hypotheses can be true in practice. Here we derive a theoretical model of the publication process that instead accounts for variation in observed effect sizes. We show that replication rates provide little insight into whether a scientific discipline is reliably and efficiently producing knowledge. In applying our model to data from a large-scale replication survey, we reveal that concerns over the reliability of scientific research may be overstated. Finally, we highlight how proposed reforms may be ineffective at improving replicability and can be detrimental to orthogonal measures of scientific productivity. |
| Date: | 2022–04–28 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:rkyf7&r= |