|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Johannes Konig; David I. Stern; Richard S. J. Tol |
| Abstract: | We compute confidence intervals for recursive impact factors, that take into account that some citations are more prestigious than others, as well as for the associated ranks of journals, applying the methods to the population of economics journals. The Quarterly Journal of Economics is clearly the journal with greatest impact, the confidence interval for its rank only includes one. Based on the simple bootstrap, the remainder of the Top5 journals are in the top 6 together with the Journal of Finance, while the Xie et al. (2009), and Mogstad et al. (2022) methods generally broaden estimated confidence intervals, particularly for mid-ranking journals. All methods agree that most apparent differences in journal quality are, in fact, mostly insignificant. |
| Date: | 2022–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2206.00004&r= |
| By: | Yihui Lan (Business School, The University of Western Australia); Kenneth W Clements (Business School, The University of Western Australia); Zong Ken Chai (Business School, The University of Western Australia) |
| Abstract: | We analyse the careers of more than 600 individuals with PhDs in economics or finance from Australian universities. About 60 percent are in now academia and one-quarter of those are at level E (professor). We construct publication and citation profiles that could be useful benchmarks. Academic experience (the number of years since gaining the PhD) is established as a major driver of publications and citations (but subject to diminishing returns). Four findings are noteworthy. (i) For those in academia, the matrix linking PhD-awarding and employing universities is sparse, but contains hints of geographic sub-networks. (ii) Outside the academic sector, there is a diverse range of jobs for PhDs. (iii) Females are substantially under represented, but there is no gender gap in research productivity. (iv) Finance scholars achieve research outcomes little different to economists. |
| Date: | 2022 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:uwa:wpaper:22-04&r= |
| By: | ATANGANA, Abdon; ARAZ, SEDA İĞRET |
| Abstract: | The high rate of new retraction from di¤erent publishers nowadays is alarming. By reading reasons or retractions notes, one will conclude that there are fair and unfair retractions. To protect the integrity of research, the practice of fair retraction should be performed and authors should be responsible for their wrong doings. On the other hand, attention should be devoted to unfair retractions, especially retraction notes indicating that the authors did not agree with the retraction. The aim of this paper is to provide a discussion by presenting …rst the statistical analysis of retraction data from ten di¤erent publishers ranging between the year 2000 and 2020. Secondly, to provide a forecast up to 2050 and see which of the publishers will have more or less retractions. The aim of such prediction is a wakeup call to authors, reviewers, editors and publishers to be more mindful of what they are doing. Most importantly, publishers must put all mechanisms in place to avoid unfair retractions. A list of possible causes of high rates of unfair and fair retractions have been presented to help di¤erent actors to take actions. A mathematical model with a system of seven ordinary di¤erential equations depicting a possible scenario of retraction dynamic is constructed in this work. Di¤erent analyses were performed for deterministic and stochastic versions. Finally a discussion and recommendations were made to restore the dignity of those authors that have been victims of unfair retractions. |
| Date: | 2021–07–18 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:osfxxx:3cbjr&r= |