|
on Sociology of Economics |
| By: | Abhishek Nagaraj; Randol Yao |
| Abstract: | Science has long been concentrated in the Western world, but the global research landscape is undergoing a profound reorganization. Using data on 44 million publications from 1980 to 2022, we document the geography of science in terms of who produces it, what it studies, and where it diffuses. The share of publications produced in the United States has fallen from 40% in 1980 to 15% in 2022, while China’s share has risen from near-zero to 32%. This pattern extends even to elite outlets, with China now producing over 35% of top-journal publications. Notably, this is driven not only by an expanding researcher base but also—to a large extent—by increases in individual productivity. This growth varies by fields: China leads in the Engineering and Physical Sciences (such as Chemistry), while the US retains its lead in Biomedical and Health Sciences. Moreover, China’s expanding leadership in scientific production has not translated into a commensurate shift in global diffusion and integration. Elite research remains disproportionately focused on US topics (40% of breakthrough publications), and citations to Chinese research disproportionately come from within China rather than from other regions, even for top-tier science. Similar to China, other middle- and low-income countries (including India, Russia, and Brazil) have also expanded output producing as much research as high-income European Union countries combined (about 21% overall) but they remain underrepresented in top-tier journals. Overall, our findings highlight both the democratization and fragmentation of global science, raising important questions about the future of the global scientific enterprise. |
| JEL: | F60 O31 O33 R10 |
| Date: | 2026–01 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:34694 |
| By: | Paolo Crosetto; Pablo Gómez Barreiro; Mark Austin Hanson |
| Abstract: | The recent exceptional growth in the number of special issues has led to the largest delegation of editorial power in the history of scientific publishing. Has this power been used responsibly? In this article we provide the first systematic analysis of a particular form of abuse of power by guest editors: endogeny, the practice of publishing articles in one’s own special issue. While moderate levels of endogeny are common in special issues, excessive endogeny is a blatant case of scientific misconduct. We define special issues containing more than 33% endogeny as Published in Support of Self (PISS). We build a dataset of over 100, 000 special issues published between 2015 and 2025 by five leading publishers. The large majority of guest editors engage in endogeny responsibly, if at all. Nonetheless, despite endogeny policies by publishers and indexers, PISS is comparable in magnitude to scientific fraud. All journals heavily relying on special issues host PISS, and more than 1, 000 PISS special issues are published each year, hosting tens of thousands of endogenous articles. Extreme PISS abuses are rare, as the majority of PISS occurs at moderate levels of endogeny. Since the scientific literature is a common pool resource this is not good news, as it reflects a widespread normalisation of guest editor misconduct. Fortunately, PISS can be solved by setting easily enforceable commonsense policies. We provide the data and analyses needed for indexers and academic regulators to act. |
| Date: | 2025–01 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:gbl:wpaper:2026-02 |
| By: | James Alm (Tulane University); Patrick Button (Tulane University); Christine P. Smith (Tulane University); Toni Weiss (Tulane University) |
| Abstract: | Many colleges have attempted to deal with student cheating by using "academic honesty statements, " or statements that students must read and acknowledge that they will follow. In this paper, we conduct a randomized controlled experiment that investigates the impact of academic honesty statements on college student examination performance, using an objective measure of student examination performance as a proxy for student cheating. Overall, we find no statistically significant differences in the test performance of students who are given the academic honesty statements and students who are not given these statements. These results indicate that academic honesty statements do not affect student performance in a significant way, so that their use is unlikely to be a reliable tool in reducing cheating. However, other explanations are possible. |
| Keywords: | Student cheating; academic misconduct; academic integrity; nudges; priming; randomized control trial |
| JEL: | A22 I21 C93 |
| Date: | 2025–11 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tul:wpaper:2510 |