|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Raphael Mu |
| Abstract: | We develop a simple model of the scientific peer review process, in which authors of varying ability invest to produce papers of varying quality, and journals evaluate papers based on a noisy signal, choosing to accept or reject each paper. We find that the first-best outcome is the limiting case as the evaluation technology is perfected, even though author type and effort are not known to the journal. Then, we consider the case where journals allow authors to challenge an initial rejection, and find that this approach to peer review yields an outcome closer to the first best relative to the approach that does not allow for such challenges. |
| Date: | 2025–10 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2510.04906 |
| By: | Dragan Filimonovic; Christian Rutzer; Conny Wunsch |
| Abstract: | This paper estimates the effect of Generative AI (GenAI) adoption on scientific productivity and quality in the social and behavioral sciences. Using matched author-level panel data and a difference-in-differences design, we find that GenAI adoption is associated with sizable increases in research productivity, measured by the number of published papers. It also leads to moderate gains in publication quality, based on journal impact factors. These effects are most pronounced among early-career researchers, authors working in technically complex subfields, and those from non-English-speaking countries. The results suggest that GenAI tools may help lower some structural barriers in academic publishing and promote more inclusive participation in research. |
| Date: | 2025–10 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2510.02408 |
| By: | Dagiene, Eleonora (Mykolas Romeris University); Aibar, Eduard |
| Abstract: | National research assessment policies, designed to boost international competitiveness, have intensified “publish or perish” pressures and reshaped the global academic publishing landscape. However, the impact of these pressures on the domestic publishing infrastructures of semi-peripheral nations remains underexplored. This paper investigates how a nation’s domestic publishing infrastructure shapes whether new, high-volume open-access publishing models function as a portfolio addition or a systemic substitute. Using a comparative mixed-methods analysis of Spain and Lithuania, we combine bibliometric data from the Web of Science (2004–2024) with 28 semi-structured interviews with researchers. The findings reveal two divergent, rational strategies. In Spain, a resilient domestic publishing infrastructure, accommodated by a flexible evaluation system, allowed researchers to adopt new publishers as a pragmatic portfolio addition to an already diverse set of options. In stark contrast, Lithuanian research assessment policies actively marginalised domestic journals, creating acute strain on the country’s publishing ecosystem. Researchers in Lithuania thus adopted these same new publishing models as a systemic substitute and a survival measure. We conclude that control over a community-managed domestic publishing infrastructure is a key factor shaping the autonomy of a national academic system. It is this infrastructure that separates a strategy of dependent displacement from one of autonomous coexistence: a crucial lesson for policymakers engaged in global research assessment reforms. |
| Date: | 2025–10–01 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:osf:socarx:ucgzm_v1 |