|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Laurent Linnemer (CREST - Centre de Recherche en Économie et Statistique - ENSAI - Ecole Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Analyse de l'Information [Bruz] - X - École polytechnique - ENSAE Paris - École Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Administration Économique - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) |
| Abstract: | This paper provides an overview of RePEc a digital platform for the dissemination of research in economics. Specifically, the focus is on RePEc's main author ranking, which aggregates 36 different rankings based on a range of criteria. The paper first describes the logic behind the ranking and then presents some key descriptive statistics on the top 5% of authors. Notably, the ranking is dominated by English-speaking authors, particularly those affiliated with institutions in the USA. Moreover, less than 9% of authors are female, while around 6% are deceased. Among the living authors, the estimated average age is 60, with over 21% of them aged 70 or above. The paper next discusses the aggregation of the 36 rankings using the harmonic mean, which is RePEc's preferred method. Some counterintuitive properties of this approach are highlighted. Finally, I propose a simpler ranking system based on two criteria-number of journal pages and number of citations-that weight journals and citations according to their qualities and also correct for the number of authors. |
| Keywords: | Economists RePEc Rankings JEL codes: A14 L11 R32., Economists, RePEc, Rankings |
| Date: | 2023–03–30 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-04051620&r=sog |
| By: | RePEc, IDEAS |
| Abstract: | This page is part of a larger set of rankings for research items, serials, authors and institutions made available on this site. A FAQ is available. Only authors registered with the RePEc Author Service are considered. Only works listed on RePEc and claimed as theirs by registered authors are counted. A series of rankings by different criteria are aggregated. The average rank score is determined by taking a harmonic mean of the ranks in each criterion. For a list of criteria, see the general ranking page. Authors with multiple affiliations have their score distributed across regions according to the affiliation shares they provided. The ranking is performed using the set of authors or institutions within the region, recomputing the scores within the set. The ranking done by simply looking up the worldwide ranking for those authors or institutions from this region is provided in the W.Rank column and put in [square brackets]. There are 66166 registered authors evaluated for all the rankings. Authors with multiple affiliations are attributed to each institution according to the weights ("shares") they have set to each in their profile, or by default according to a formula described here. Authors affiliated with subentities of institutions listed in EDIRC are also counted in the latter. Only institutions listed in EDIRC are counted. Subentities of ranked institutions do not increment the rank count and have their rank listed in parentheses. Authors with multiple affiliations have their score distributed across regions according to the affiliation shares they provided. The ranking is performed using the set of authors or institutions within the region, recomputing the scores within the set. The ranking done by simply looking up the worldwide ranking for those authors or institutions from this region is provided in the W.Rank column and put in [square brackets]. Please note that rankings can depend on the number of registered authors in the respective institutions. Register at the RePEc Author Service to be counted. There are 8676 institutions with 66166 registered authors evaluated for all the rankings. |
| Date: | 2023–04–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:osfxxx:vdfkw&r=sog |
| By: | Siemroth, Christoph |
| Abstract: | This article contributes to the debate in the economics profession on reforming the peer-review process. It examines the current state of peer-review in economics, surveys the relevant literature, and identifies several problems and solutions. Problems to be discussed are referee overreach and excessive revisions, strategic refereeing and conflicts of interest, prestige bias and other discrimination, and the noisy outcome of peer-review. It recommends several solutions for reform. First, enforce referee guidelines that reports must explicitly separate their suggestions into essential and optional, with 3 essential maximum. Second, let authors award the best referee report. Third, adopt conflict of interest policies for referees and punish non-disclosure. Fourth, use double-blind refereeing. Fifth, make better use of prior reports from other journals. Sixth, pay referees for prompt reports. A discussion of the role of editors highlights additional issues that deserve a debate in the profession. |
| Keywords: | Conflicts of Interest; Excessive Revisions; Peer-Review; Prestige Bias; Publication Process; Referee Overreach; Reform; Survey |
| Date: | 2023–04–27 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:esx:essedp:35460&r=sog |
| By: | Alexandre Truc (Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS, GREDEG, France) |
| Abstract: | Disciplinary mobility occurs when researchers publish outside their disciplines of origin. It is an important mechanism of interdisciplinarity and knowledge transfer. New behavioral economics (BE) was founded by two psychologists, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, who used disciplinary mobility to influence economics. In this article, we study the disciplinary mobility of seven core behavioral economists to better understand how it has influenced the early development of BE and the interdisciplinary practices of later behavioral economists. Besides the movement of psychologists towards the center of economics, we identify an outward movement of economists away from the discipline. This movement away from economics has allowed some behavioral economists to gain new scientific legitimacy, while escaping some of the normative traditions of economics. This has enabled them to push the frontiers of economics and promote a more radical approach to BE. |
| Keywords: | Behavioral Economics, Interdisciplinarity, Social Network Analysis |
| Date: | 2022–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:gre:wpaper:2022-27&r=sog |
| By: | Donia Kamel; Laura Pollacci |
| Abstract: | Iron Curtain and Big Data are two words usually used to denote completely two different eras. Yet, the context the former offers and the rich data source the latter provides, enable the causal identification of the effect of networks on migration. Academics in countries behind the Iron Curtain were strongly isolated from the rest of the world. This context poses the question of the importance of academic networks for migration post the fall of the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain. Using Microsoft Academic Knowledge Graph, a scholarly big data source, mapping of academics’ networks is possible and information about the size and quality of their co-authorships, by location is achieved. Focusing on academics from Eastern Europe (henceforth EE) from 1980-1988 and their academic networks (1980-1988), We investigate the effect of academic network characteristics, by location, on the probability to migrate post the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and up to 2003, marking the year many EE countries held referendums or signed treaties to join the EU. The unique context ensures that there was no anticipation of the fall of the Eastern Bloc and together with the data that offers unique rich information, identification is achieved. Approximately 30k academics from EE were identified, from which 3% were migrants. The results could be explained by two channels, the cost and signalling channel. The cost channel is how the network characteristic reduces or increases the cost of migration and thus acting as a facilitator or a de-facilitator of migration. The signal channel on the other hand in which the network characteristic serves as a signal for the academic himself and his quality and his potential contribution and addition to the new host institution, thus also serving as a facilitator or a de-facilitator of migration. We find that mostly network size and quality results could be explained by the cost channel and signalling channel, respectively. Size of the network tends to be more important than the quality, which is a context-specific result. We find heterogeneous effects by fields of study that align with previous lines of research. Heterogeneous effects are explained by two things: threat of attention and arrest from KGB and the role of reputation, language, and network barriers. |
| Keywords: | networks, migration, academic networks, Big Data, brain drain, Iron Curtain, Eastern Europe |
| JEL: | C55 D85 F50 I20 I23 J24 N34 N44 O15 |
| Date: | 2023 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10377&r=sog |