Field publishing performance of U.S. economics departments

Tremblay, Carol Horton; Tremblay, Victor J.; Lee, Byunglak

doi:10.1007/bf02313367

Cited by 21 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Tschirhart (1989), the universities were rated between 42 and 102 in terms of articles per faculty member. In Tremblay et al (1990), four of the five universities were ranked between 51 and 92 (in pages 8An example of matching in academic labor markets can be found in Singell, Lillydahl, and Singell (1996). In their study of time allocations of university faculty, Singell et al uncovered a strong match between institutional incentive structures and faculty attributes.…”

Section: Empirical Analysismentioning

confidence: 97%

Negative Returns to Seniority: New Evidence in Academic Markets

Bratsberg¹,

Ragan²,

Warren³

2003

ILR Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has suggested that the long-observed negative association between seniority and pay among college faculty largely reflects below-average research productivity of senior faculty-a possibility that most earlier studies did not examine.Overlooked in both waves of studies, however, is match quality. Because the higher quality of the faculty/institutional match implied by higher seniority should, all else equal, result in higher salaries, failure to account for match quality inflates the estimated returns to seniority. Indeed, that positive bias, the authors find, is roughly equal in magnitude to the negative bias caused by failure to account for research quantity and quality. When they account for both match quality and faculty research productivity in an analysis of data on economics faculty at five research universities over a 21-year period, the authors estimate that, holding experience and other factors constant, the penalty for twenty years of seniority is 16% of salary. aculty pay structures have long been of interest to economists.1 Consistentwith findings for nonacademic markets, faculty pay has been found to rise with experience and to be positively related to measures of productivity. Unlike in other markets, how-'Early studies of academic pay include Cohn (1973), Siegfried and White (1973), Ferber (1974), andJohnson and Stafford (1974).ever, there is evidence that returns to seniority are commonly negative for faculty. One proposed explanation for this anomalous finding emphasizes the monopsony power of most colleges and universities; another singles out the effects of "raiding," in which high-quality faculty are bid away, resulting in a negative correlation between seniority and unmeasured faculty productivity.Recently, Moore, Newman, and Turnbull (1998) argued that estimated returns to seniority in previous studies are biased downward because of the failure of these studies to control for quality of faculty research. Consistent with this claim, they showed that the coefficient of seniority became less negative once controls for research quality were included in the empirical model. Indeed, when the coefficient of seniority lost statistical significance, they concluded that the puzzle had been resolved: there is no need to explain negative

show abstract

Section: Empirical Analysismentioning

confidence: 97%

Negative Returns to Seniority: New Evidence in Academic Markets

Bratsberg¹,

Ragan²,

Warren³

2003

ILR Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tremblay et al [12] explore sub-field publishing performance for 19 selected fields by PhD granting US economics departments from 1980 to 1986. They do include health economics as a distinct field, finding that faculty at 47 universities published in the field during this period.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A bibliometric analysis of health economics articles in the economics literature: 1991‐2000

Rubin

Chang

2003

Health Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes and analyzes trends in health economics articles indexed in the economics literature from 1991 to 2000, demonstrating the robust state of publication in the field during the past decade. While articles, pages, and the number of journals increased, single authorship declined dramatically from almost half of articles published to only one-third, and papers with four or more authors increased three-fold. Over three-fourths of articles were analyses of healthcare markets or health production, while policy oriented articles constituted the third largest share. Author concentration ratios decreased almost by half and the Herfindhal-Hirschman index of author concentration declined from 14 in 1991 to only 4 in 1999.

show abstract

“…Such studies began appearing in the finance literature in the late 1970s (Henry and Burch 1974;Schweser 1977;Klemkosky and Tuttle 1977;Heck et al 1986;Heck and Cooley 1988). Similar studies in the economic literature include those by Graves et al (1982) , Davis and Papanek (1984), Hirsh et al (1984), Leband (1986), Medoff (1989), Tremblay et al (1990), and Tschishart ( 1989). This plethora of published productivity suggests a broad and enduring interest in such research.…”

Section: Purpose Of Studymentioning

confidence: 86%

Eight Decades of Contributing Authors and Institutions to theAmerican Economic Review:A Historical Summary

Heck

1993

The Journal of Economic Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field publishing performance of U.S. economics departments

Cited by 21 publications

References 10 publications

Negative Returns to Seniority: New Evidence in Academic Markets

Negative Returns to Seniority: New Evidence in Academic Markets

A bibliometric analysis of health economics articles in the economics literature: 1991‐2000

Eight Decades of Contributing Authors and Institutions to theAmerican Economic Review:A Historical Summary

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About