|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Brodeur, Abel; Kattan, Lamis; Musumeci, Marco |
| Abstract: | Graduating economics PhDs face intense competition when seeking faculty or research positions at universities and research institutions. We examine the relationship between statistically significant results, arguably used as indicators of research quality in a competitive academic market, and academic hiring outcomes. We start by investigating the determinants of academic success by analyzing 604 job market papers (JMPs) from 2018-2019 to 2020- 2021. We then turn to the importance of statistical significance focusing on 150 empirical JMPs. We find evidence that 'marginally' significant results in JMPs are associated with higher academic placement likelihoods. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a tighter job market strengthened this relationship without altering the p-hacking behavior of PhD candidates, suggesting that our results reflect a recruitment bias by academic employers. We also find evidence of publication bias, suggesting that recruiters may use statistical significance to gauge candidates' potential for future publications, thus influencing recruitment decisions. Overall, our findings provide insights into the dynamics of the academic job market and highlight incentives that would potentially reward academics for questionable research practices. |
| Keywords: | Academic job market, p-Hacking: Publication bias, Research credibility |
| JEL: | B41 C13 C40 C93 |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:glodps:1514 |
| By: | Mohamed Bassi |
| Abstract: | This Policy Brief examines economic research in Africa using data from the RePEc (Research Papers in Economics) platform. It examines the productivity of researchers affiliated with African institutions, some of whom are extremely prolific, while the average for the continent as a whole remains below international standards. As a result, Africa's contribution to global economic research as a whole remains modest, despite the continent's considerable economic stakes. The paper then looks at prevailing research themes by analyzing CIP and JEL codes, and examining titles and keywords attached to publications. This shows that research priorities of African economics researchers depend on institutional affiliation, with some focusing on African issues, while others take on topics of global importance. |
| Date: | 2023–09 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ocp:rpaeco:pb_38_23 |
| By: | Simone Bertoli (CERDI - Centre d'Études et de Recherches sur le Développement International - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UCA - Université Clermont Auvergne); Melchior Clerc (CERDI - Centre d'Études et de Recherches sur le Développement International - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UCA - Université Clermont Auvergne); Jordan Loper (CERDI - Centre d'Études et de Recherches sur le Développement International - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UCA - Université Clermont Auvergne); Èric Roca Fernández (CERDI - Centre d'Études et de Recherches sur le Développement International - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UCA - Université Clermont Auvergne) |
| Abstract: | In recent years, the process of evaluating economic research articles has evolved with the introduction of a key step for studies based on empirical analyses. After peer review and approval by the editor, authors must engage with the Data Editor, who ensures that the codes and datasets used reproduce the reported results. The Data Editor has the authority to reject publication if significant data issues arise. If the article is accepted, the associated code and data are made publicly available in line with open science principles, allowing other researchers to verify and replicate the analysis. However, strict replicability of the results is not always guaranteed, as the consistency between the methodology described in the article and the code used to implement it is not systematically verified. This gap highlights the need for a re-evaluation of current practices and greater emphasis on replicating scientific studies. |
| Abstract: | Ces dernières années, le processus d'évaluation des articles en sciences économiques a évolué avec l'ajout d'une étape clé pour les articles basés sur des analyses empiriques. Après validation par les pairs et l'éditeur, les auteurs doivent interagir avec le Data Editor, qui vérifie si les codes et données utilisés reproduisent les résultats présentés. Ce dernier peut refuser la publication en cas de problèmes liés aux données. Si l'article est accepté, les codes et données sont publiés conformément aux principes de science ouverte, permettant la vérification et la réplication par d'autres chercheurs. Cependant, la réplicabilité stricte des résultats n'est pas toujours garantie, car la cohérence entre la méthodologie décrite dans l'article et le code n'est pas systématiquement contrôlée. Cette faille souligne la nécessité de repenser certaines pratiques et de promouvoir davantage les réplications d'études scientifiques. |
| Keywords: | Replicability, Transparency, Scientific practices, Empirical analysis, Peer review, Réplicabilité, Transparence, Pratiques scientifiques, Analyse empirique, Examen par les pairs |
| Date: | 2024–10–15 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04753548 |
| By: | Tibboel, Helen (Ghent University); Pijpers, Kevin; de Bruin, Gwen; Denktas, Semiha |
| Abstract: | The distribution of research funding in academia is not equitable. There is a disproportionate allocation of funding benefitting an academic elite, whereas researchers from different marginalized groups have fewer opportunities to obtain funding. This can be changed by exploring alternative ways to allocate research funding. One way in which funding agencies have tried to stimulate research based on more equitable principles is the sandpit model. A sandpit is an intensive, multi-day brainstorming event during which different consortia are formed. These consortia are subsequently required to compete to obtain research funding. Very little research is done on how and whether such models work. There is some evidence that, under the right circumstances, models such as the sandpit can stimulate multidisciplinary research with societal impact. However, no attention has been given to the question whether these models contribute to equity within the academic world, or whether they sustain the inequities that are prominent. Within this paper, we critically examine possible mechanisms of exclusion through an in-depth study of a sandpit event, and we discuss which groups are disadvantaged by these events. Furthermore, we suggest ways in which sandpits and other funding initiatives can be made more equitable. |
| Date: | 2024–10–24 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:vbdtp |