nep-sog New Economics Papers
on Sociology of Economics
Issue of 2023‒01‒30
three papers chosen by
Jonas Holmström
Axventure AB

  1. Do Economists Replicate? By Ankel-Peters, Jörg; Fiala, Nathan; Neubauer, Florian
  2. Ethical publishing: how do we get there? By Fernando Racimo; Nicolas Galtier; Véronique de Herde; Noémie Bonn; Ben Phillips; Thomas Guillemaud; Denis Bourguet
  3. An analytical framework-based pedagogical method for scholarly community coaching: A proof of concept By Jin, Ruining; Hoang, Giang; Nguyen, Thi-Phuong; Nguyen, Phuong-Tri; Le, Tam-Tri; La, Viet-Phuong; Nguyen, Minh-Hoang; Vuong, Quan-Hoang

  1. By: Ankel-Peters, Jörg; Fiala, Nathan; Neubauer, Florian
    Abstract: Reanalyses of empirical studies and replications in new contexts are important for scientific progress. Journals in economics increasingly require authors to provide data and code alongside published papers, but how much does the economics profession actually replicate? This paper summarizes existing replication definitions and reviews how much economists replicate other scholars' work. We argue that in order to counter incentive problems potentially leading to a replication crisis, replications in the spirit of Merton's 'organized skepticism' are needed - what we call 'policing replications'. We review leading economics journals to show that policing replications are rare and conclude that more incentives to replicate are needed to reap the fruits of rising transparency standards.
    Keywords: replication, replicability, research transparency, meta-science, generalizability, systematic review
    JEL: A11 C18
    Date: 2023
  2. By: Fernando Racimo (UCPH - University of Copenhagen = Københavns Universitet); Nicolas Galtier (UMR ISEM - Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution de Montpellier - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - EPHE - École pratique des hautes études - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - Institut de recherche pour le développement [IRD] : UR226 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UM - Université de Montpellier); Véronique de Herde (UCL - Université Catholique de Louvain = Catholic University of Louvain); Noémie Bonn (UHasselt - Hasselt University); Ben Phillips (University of Melbourne); Thomas Guillemaud (ISA - Institut Sophia Agrobiotech - UNS - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (1965 - 2019) - COMUE UCA - COMUE Université Côte d'Azur (2015-2019) - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - UCA - Université Côte d'Azur); Denis Bourguet (UMR CBGP - Centre de Biologie pour la Gestion des Populations - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - IRD [France-Sud] - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Montpellier - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement - UM - Université de Montpellier)
    Abstract: The academic journal publishing model is deeply unethical: today, a few major, for-profit conglomerates control more than 50% of all articles in the natural sciences and social sciences, driving subscription and open-access publishing fees above levels that can be sustainably maintained by publicly funded universities, libraries, and research institutions worldwide. About a third of the costs paid for publishing papers is profit for these dominant publishers' shareholders, and about half of them covers costs to keep the system running, including lobbying, marketing fees, and paywalls. The paywalls in turn restrict access of scientific outputs, preventing them from being freely shared with the public and other researchers. Thus, money that the public is told goes into science is actually being funneled away from it, or used to limit access to it. Alternatives to this model exist and have increased in popularity in recent years, including diamond open-access journals and community-driven recommendation models. These are free of charge for authors and minimize costs for institutions and agencies, while making peer-reviewed scientific results publicly accessible. However, for-profit publishing agents have made change difficult, by co-opting open-access schemes and creating journal-driven incentives that prevent an effective collective transition away from profiteering. Here, we give a brief overview of the current state of the academic publishing system, including its most important systemic problems. We then describe alternative systems. We explain the reasons why the move toward them can be perceived as costly to individual researchers, and we demystify common roadblocks to change. Finally, in view of the above, we provide a set of guidelines and recommendations that academics at all levels can implement, in order to enable a more rapid and effective transition toward ethical publishing.
    Keywords: academic publishing, journal, open-access, peer-review, ethics, collective action, recommendation model
    Date: 2022
  3. By: Jin, Ruining; Hoang, Giang; Nguyen, Thi-Phuong; Nguyen, Phuong-Tri; Le, Tam-Tri; La, Viet-Phuong; Nguyen, Minh-Hoang; Vuong, Quan-Hoang
    Abstract: Working in academia is challenging, even more so for those with limited resources and opportunities. Researchers around the world do not have equal working conditions. The paper presents the structure, operation method, and conceptual framework of the SM3D Portal’s community coaching method, which is built to help Early Career Researchers (ECRs) and researchers in low-resource settings overcome the obstacle of inequality and start their career progress. The community coaching method is envisioned by three science philosophies (cost-effectiveness, transparency spirit, and proactive attitude) and established and operated based on the Serendipity-Mindsponge-3D knowledge (SM3D) management framework (i.e., mindsponge thinking and Bayesian Mindsponge Framework analytics serve as the coaching program’s foundational theory and analytical tools). The coaching method also embraces Open Science’s values for lowering the cost of doing science and encouraging the trainees to be transparent, which is expected to facilitate the self-correcting mechanism of science through open data, open review, and open dialogue. Throughout the training process, members are central beneficiaries by gaining research knowledge and skills, acquiring publication as the training’s product, and shifting their mindsets from “I can’t do it” to “I can do it, ” and at the same time transforming a mentee to be ready for a future mentor’s role. The coaching method is thus one of the members, for the member, by the members.
    Date: 2022–12–28

This nep-sog issue is ©2023 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.