|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Thibaut Arpinon (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR1 - Université de Rennes 1 - UNIV-RENNES - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Romain Espinosa (CIRED - Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AgroParisTech - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) |
| Abstract: | The current publication system in economics has encouraged the inflation of positive results in empirical papers. Registered Reports, also called Pre-Results Reviews, are a new submission format for empirical work that takes pre-registration one step further. In Registered Reports, researchers write their papers before running the study and commit to a detailed data collection process and analysis plan. After a first-stage review, a journal can give an In-Principle-Acceptance guaranteeing that the paper will be published if the authors carry out their data collection and analysis as pre-specified. We here propose a practical guide to Registered Reports for empirical economists. We illustrate the major problems that Registered Reports address (phacking, HARKing, forking, and publication bias), and present practical guidelines on how to write and review Registered Reports (e.g., the data-analysis plan, power analysis, and correction for multiple-hypothesis testing), with R and STATA codes. We provide specific examples for experimental economics, and show how research design can be improved to maximize statistical power. Last, we discuss some tools that authors, editors, and referees can use to evaluate Registered Reports (checklist, study-design table, and quality assessment). |
| Keywords: | Registered Reports, practical guide, pre-registration, p-hacking, HARKing, multiplehypothesis testing, power analysis, the smallest effect size of interest |
| Date: | 2022 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-03897719&r=sog |
| By: | Christian Leuz; Anup Malani; Maximilian Muhn; Laszlo Jakab |
| Abstract: | Financial ties between drug companies and medical researchers are thought to bias studies published in medical journals. To enable readers to account for such bias, most medical journals require authors to disclose potential conflicts of interest. We examine whether disclosure reduces article citations, indicating a discount. A challenge to estimating this effect is selection as drug companies may seek out higher quality authors. Our analysis confirms this positive association. Including observable controls for article and author quality attenuates but does not eliminate this relation. We perform three tests. First, we show that the positive association is weaker for review articles, which are more susceptible to bias. Second, we examine article recommendations to family physicians among articles that are a priori more homogenous in quality. We find a significantly negative association between disclosure and expert recommendations, consistent with discounting. Third, we conduct an analysis within author and article, exploiting journal policy changes that result in conflict disclosure by an author. We examine the effect of this disclosure on citations to a previously published article by the same author. This analysis reveals a negative citation effect. Overall, our evidence is consistent with the notion that other researchers discount articles with disclosed conflicts. |
| JEL: | D83 D84 G18 K20 L51 M40 O31 |
| Date: | 2023–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:30927&r=sog |
| By: | Mariana Fernández Soto (Universidad de la República (Uruguay). Facultad de Ciencias Sociales); Estefanía Galván (Universidad de la República (Uruguay). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Economía); Sofía Robaina (Universidad de la República (Uruguay). Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica); Victoria Tenenbaum (Universidad de la República (Uruguay). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Economía); Cecilia Tomassini (Universidad de la República (Uruguay). Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica) |
| Abstract: | Despite progress in the participation of women in science, there are still gender gaps in the advancement and consolidation of their academic careers. The international literature points out the relevance of studying how gender roles, especially those derived from care responsibilities, affect men and women differently at different stages of academic careers. This document includes the first results of the project "The link between motherhood and fatherhood and gender inequalities in the academic trajectories", which has the objective of studying the influence of motherhood and fatherhood in the construction of academic trajectories of male and female researchers in Uruguay. The analysis focuses on three dimensions: 1) postgraduate training trajectories, 2) progress on the academic stratification scales, and 3) academic production. The data source used is the CVUy - managed by the National Agency for Research and Innovation (ANII - Uruguay), which allowed the construction of a longitudinal database that combines demographic and academic information, and is complemented by a primary source of information. The results show gender inequalities in the three dimensions explored. Most of these inequalities are non-existent at the beginning of the academic activity and are generated and amplified throughout the life cycle. The evidence presented suggests that motherhood plays a relevant role in widening gender gaps in academia. |
| Keywords: | gender inequalities, academic science, maternity-paternity |
| JEL: | J13 I23 J16 |
| Date: | 2022–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ulr:wpaper:dt-06-22&r=sog |
| By: | Yan, Zheng; Yang, Panpan; Liu, Qingyang; Erickson, Joan J. |
| Abstract: | Research grants are a critical means for research policy, research management, and research administration to generate scientific breakthroughs, technical innovations, and social impacts. Currently, the exponential growth of the research literature on research grants has been scattered across diverse outlets and disciplines. The present paper is the first scoping review to generate an overall coherent picture of the science of research grants or grantology by focusing on the basic literature published from 1970 to 2020. Based on both a process-based conceptual framework and 275 identified important research articles, we synthesize the current knowledge in seven key areas, i.e., grant writers, grant writing, grant agents, grant review, grant projects, grant management, and grant impacts. Our review indicates that three major topics, grant writing practices, grant review, and scientific impacts, have dominated the existing literature, Future research should examine four key topics, development of grant writers, grant resubmission, grant professionals, and grant use, to further advance the science of research grants. Limitations and implications of the study are discussed. |
| Date: | 2023–01–30 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:osfxxx:ynepm&r=sog |
| By: | Verónica Amarante (Universidad de la República (Uruguay). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Economía); Marisa Bucheli (Universidad de la República (Uruguay). Facultad de Ciencias Sociales); Cecilia Lara (Universidad de la República (Uruguay). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Economía) |
| Abstract: | This article considers the level of consensus among Uruguayan economists regarding a set of economic propositions. Based on an online survey and using a Likert scale, we ask for the level of agreement with 39 economic propositions. Our results indicate that strong and substantial consensus is lower among Uruguayan economists than among their colleagues in other countries. Higher levels of agreement correspond to propositions related to discrimination and, to a lesser extent, environmental issues. The will of improving income equality and the importance of the State to achieve it generate consensus. However, there is no consensus about redistributive tools. Based on clustering on multiple correspondence analysis, we distinguish two differentiated groups according to their support for different economic propositions. The probability of belonging to either of these groups is strongly associated with ideological identification. |
| Keywords: | economists, consensus, opinions |
| JEL: | A11 A14 |
| Date: | 2022–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ulr:wpaper:dt-09-22&r=sog |