|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Niels Johannesen; Simon Muchardt |
| Abstract: | Do gender disparities in academia reflect that female scholars are held to higher standards than males? We address this question by comparing the scientific merit of male and female academic economists who make the same career step. Across four domains – i.e. faculty positions, network affiliations, research grants and editor appointments – we find no evidence that standards are higher for females. By contrast, the average female has less citations and publications than the average male who makes the same career step. In most domains, this reflects a gender gap for “marginal” scholars, consistent with lower merit thresholds for females. |
| Keywords: | gender differences, discrimination, unequal treatment, gender gap, academic labor markets |
| JEL: | A11 I23 J16 J44 J62 |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ces:ceswps:_11101&r= |
| By: | Andreas Finke; Thomas Hensel |
| Abstract: | Peer review is a laborious, yet essential, part of academic publishing with crucial impact on the scientific endeavor. The current lack of incentives and transparency harms the credibility of this process. Researchers are neither rewarded for superior nor penalized for bad reviews. Additionally, confidential reports cause a loss of insights and make the review process vulnerable to scientific misconduct. We propose a community-owned and -governed system that 1) remunerates reviewers for their efforts, 2) publishes the (anonymized) reports for scrutiny by the community, 3) tracks reputation of reviewers and 4) provides digital certificates. Automated by transparent smart-contract blockchain technology, the system aims to increase quality and speed of peer review while lowering the chance and impact of erroneous judgements. |
| Date: | 2024–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2404.18148&r= |
| By: | Alberto Baccini; Cristina Re |
| Abstract: | In research evaluation, the fair representation of panels is usually defined in terms of observable characteristics of scholars such as gender or affiliations. An an empirical strategy is proposed for exploring hidden connections between panellists such that, despite the respect of formal requirements, the panel could be considered alike as unfair with respect to the representation of diversity of research approaches and methodologies. The case study regards the three panels selected to evaluate research in economics, statistics and business during the Italian research assessment exercises. The first two panels were appointed directly by the governmental agency responsible for the evaluation, while the third was randomly selected. Hence the third panel can be considered as a control for evaluating about the fairness of the others. The fair representation is explored by comparing the networks of panellists based on their co-authorship relations, the networks based on journals in which they published and the networks based on their affiliated institutions (universities, research centres and newspapers). The results show that the members of the first two panels had connections much higher than the members of the control group. Hence the composition of the first two panels should be considered as unfair, as the results of the research assessments. |
| Date: | 2024–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2405.06476&r= |
| By: | Seth R. Gitter (Department of Economics, Towson University); Robert J. Gitter (Department of Economics and Business, Ohio Wesleyan University) |
| Abstract: | Hiring a new economics faculty member is a time-consuming and arduous process, especially for smaller, teaching-oriented programs with limited faculty and budgetary resources. Access to information on graduate programs and candidates that are more likely to yield successful hires allows these programs to allocate scarce resources more efficiently. A dataset of over 650 economics PhD placements at non-economics PhD-granting institutions partially fills this information gap. Results show that new assistant professors in teaching-oriented economics departments tend to be hired from economics PhD-granting institutions with a mean U.S. News and World Report ranking of around 45. In addition, results indicate a positive relationship between the rank of the hiring department and the PhD-granting program. Top-ranked graduate programs in economics send a smaller proportion of their graduates to teaching-oriented institutions, and the average rank of new PhD hires has declined over time. Hires from top PhD- granting programs are more likely to stay at liberal arts colleges and less likely to stay at national universities relative to peers hired at lower-ranked PhD programs. |
| Keywords: | Market for Economists, PhD placements, Small Liberal Arts Schools, and Professor Retention. |
| JEL: | A11 |
| Date: | 2024–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tow:wpaper:2024-05&r= |
| By: | Hanqiao Zhang; Joy D. Xiuyao Yang |
| Abstract: | The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted traditional academic collaboration patterns, prompting a unique opportunity to analyze the influence of peer effects and coauthorship dynamics on research output. Using a novel dataset, this paper endeavors to make a first cut at investigating the role of peer effects on the productivity of economics scholars, measured by the number of publications, in both pre-pandemic and pandemic times. Results show that peer effect is significant for the pre-pandemic time but not for the pandemic time. The findings contribute to our understanding of how research collaboration influences knowledge production and may help guide policies aimed at fostering collaboration and enhancing research productivity in the academic community. |
| Date: | 2024–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2404.18980&r= |
| By: | Alexander Cuntz; Frank Mueller-Langer; Alessio Muscarnera; Prince C. Oguguo; Marc Scheufen |
| Abstract: | TWe examine the implications of lowering barriers to online access to scientific publications for science and innovation in developing countries. We investigate whether and how free or low-cost access to scientific publications through the UN-led Research For Life (R4L) initiative leads to more scientific publications and clinical trials of authors affiliated with research institutions in developing countries. We find that free or reduced-fee access to the health science literature through Hinari (WHO-led subprogramme) increases the scientific publication output and clinical trials output of institutions in developing countries. In contrast, once we control for selection bias, we do not find empirical support for a positive Hinari effect on knowledge spillovers and local institutions’ research input into global patenting, as measured by paper citations in patent documents. Main findings can be generalized to other R4L subprogrammes and are likely to also apply to the WIPO-led Access to Research for Development and Innovation (ARDI) programme. |
| Keywords: | Scientific publications, Science, Innovation |
| Date: | 2024–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wip:wpaper:78&r= |
| By: | Campbell, Douglas; Brodeur, Abel; Dreber, Anna; Johannesson, Magnus; Kopecky, Joseph; Lusher, Lester; Tsoy, Nikita |
| Abstract: | We estimate the robustness reproducibility of key results from 17 non-experimental AER papers published in 2013 (8 papers) and 2022/23 (9 papers). We find that many of the results are not robust, with no improvement over time. The fraction of significant robustness tests (p﹤0.05) varies between 17% and 88% across the papers with a mean of 46%. The mean relative t/z-value of the robustness tests varies between 35% and 87% with a mean of 63%, suggesting selective reporting of analytical specifications that exaggerate statistical significance. A sample of economists (n=359) overestimates robustness reproducibility, but predictions are correlated with observed reproducibility. |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:i4rdps:124&r= |
| By: | Hager, Sebastian (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen); Schwarz, Carlo (Universit`a Bocconi, Department of Economics, IGIER, PERICLES, CEPR, CAGE); Waldinger, Fabian (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen, CEPR, CESifo) |
| Abstract: | We study how performance metrics affect the allocation of talent by exploiting the introduction of the first citation database in science. For technical reasons, it only covered citations from certain journals and years, creating quasi-random variation: some citations became visible, while others remained invisible. We identify the effects of citation metrics by comparing the predictiveness of visible to invisible citations. Citation metrics increased assortative matching between scientists and departments by reducing information frictions over geographic and intellectual distance. Highly-cited scientists from lower-ranked departments (“hidden stars†) and from minorities benefited more. Citation metrics also affected promotions and NSF-grants, suggesting Matthew effects. |
| Keywords: | JEL Classification: |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cge:wacage:698&r= |