nep-sog New Economics Papers
on Sociology of Economics
Issue of 2022‒10‒10
five papers chosen by
Jonas Holmström
Axventure AB

  1. Network effects or rent extraction? Evidence from editorial board rotation. By Lorenzo Ductor; Bauke Visser
  2. Development and Interdisciplinarity: re-examining the 'economics silo' By Matthias Aistleitner
  3. Paying for Open Access By Stich, Lucas; Spann, Martin; Schmidt, Klaus M.
  4. Diversity and Labor Market Outcomes in the Economics Profession By Lucia Foster; Erika McEntarfer; Danielle H. Sandler
  5. How Patent Rights Affect UniversityScience By Laurent BERGÉ; Thorsten DOHERR; Katrin HUSSINGER

  1. By: Lorenzo Ductor (Department of Economic Theory and Economic History, University of Granada.); Bauke Visser (Erasmus University Rotterdam and Tinbergen Institute)
    Abstract: A department’s yearly publication count in a journal increases when a member of the department joins the journal’s editorial board. The common interpretation of this fact—that during the board member’s tenure, departmental colleagues publish more—is inaccurate. In a sample of 106 economics journals covering 1990-2011, we estimate that of the observed increase in the publication count, 73 per cent is (co-)authored by board members themselves. Their single-authored papers in a journal receive significantly less citations if they are on that journal’s editorial board. We find no evidence that they discover attractive papers among their colleagues that otherwise wouldn’t be published.
    Keywords: Editorial boards, Networks, Colleague, Coauthor, Rent extraction, Publishing
    JEL: A11 A14 O31
    Date: 2022–09–15
  2. By: Matthias Aistleitner (Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria)
    Abstract: Recent evidence from citation analysis [Mitra, S., Palmer, M, Vuon, V. (2020). Development and interdisciplinarity: A citation analysis. World Development, 135, 105076; hereafter MPV] shows that development as a field of study hardly interacts with other disciplines – except mainstream economics. Moreover, MPV analyze the reported affiliation of each author listed in the Web of Science database and find that, in response to growing competition in the publishing process, economists tend to publish more in development studies journals. In this paper, I apply an alternative approach in identifying the disciplinary and paradigmatic background of development scholars by matching bibliometric data on articles published in World Development with the RePEc author database. The results from this analysis suggest a quite different picture regarding the share of economists that publish in the field’s flagship journal: in contrast to MPV, I report a significantly higher share of scholars with an economics research background. Considering these findings, the paper further explores non-trivial differences of the 'economics silo' (i.e. economists that publish research related to development) in World Development vis-Ã -vis research by scholars from other social science disciplines via extensive citation analysis. The overall finding of this analysis is that the lack of interdisciplinarity (as observed by MPV) is largely due to economists that publish their work in the journal.
    Keywords: Development, Interdisciplinarity, Citation Analysis, RePEc, Economic Imperialism
    Date: 2022–09
  3. By: Stich, Lucas (LMU Munich); Spann, Martin (LMU Munich); Schmidt, Klaus M. (LMU Munich)
    Abstract: Open access (OA) publishing upends the traditional business model in scientific publishing by requiring authors instead of readers to pay for the publishing-related costs. In this paper, we aim to elicit the willingness to pay (WTP) of authors for open access publishing. We conduct two separate field studies with different methodological approaches in different scientific disciplines (economics and medicine). First, a choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis measures stated preferences of 243 economists in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland regarding their valuations of open access publishing in the “Top 5” economics journals. Second, a field experiment at four different open access medical journals elicits authors’ self-determined (“Pay-What-You-Want”) payments for open access publications. The results provide a plausible range of authors’ valuations, given that the first study rather provides an upper bound and the second study a lower bound of authors’ willingness to pay for open access publishing.
    Keywords: open access; willingness to pay; choice-based conjoint analysis; pay-what-you-want; field experiment;
    JEL: D12 M31 L11 L82
    Date: 2021–01–19
  4. By: Lucia Foster; Erika McEntarfer; Danielle H. Sandler
    Abstract: While the lack of gender and racial diversity in economics in academia (for students and professors) is well-established, less is known about the overall placement and earnings of economists by gender and race. Understanding demand-side factors is important, as improvements in the supply side by diversifying the pipeline alone may not be enough to improve equity in the profession. Using the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) linked to Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) jobs data, we examine placements and earnings for economists working in the U.S. after receiving a PhD by gender and race. We find enormous dispersion in pay for economists within and across sectors that grows over time. Female PhD economists earn about 12 percent less than their male colleagues on average; Black PhD economists earn about 15 percent less than their white counterparts on average; and overall underrepresented minority PhD economists earn about 8 percent less than their white counterparts. These pay disparities are attenuated in some sectors and when controlling for rank of PhD granting institution and employer.
    Date: 2022–07
  5. By: Laurent BERGÉ; Thorsten DOHERR; Katrin HUSSINGER
    Abstract: How do intellectual property rights influence academic science? We investigate the consequences of the introduction of software patents in the U.S. on the publications of university researchers in the field of computer science. Difference-in-difference estimations reveal that software scientists at U.S. universities produced fewer publications (both in terms of quantity and quality) than their European counterparts after patent rights for software inventions were introduced. We then introduce a theoretical model that accounts for substitution and complementarity between patenting and publishing as well as for the direction of research. In line with the model’s prediction, further results show that the decrease in publications is largest for scientists at the bottom of the ability distribution. Further, we evidence a change in the direction of research following the reform towards more applied research.
    Keywords: patent rights, publications, economics of science, difference-in-difference estimation, model of science production
    JEL: I23 O31 O34 O38 L38
    Date: 2022

This nep-sog issue is ©2022 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.