The perils of peer review in economics and other sciences

Editorial Favoritism in Economics?

“…Because of the active competition between journals, editors attempt to persuade authors to submit their high-quality papers to them in exchange for a reduction in the transaction costs involved in the reviewing/publication process. Critics of the editorial review process contend that the absence of any clearly defined criteria of what constitutes a significant high-quality contribution produces editorial favoritism in the review process (FoIster 1995;Mackie 1998). It is argued that publication decisions are swayed by an author's personal or institutional connections to the editor or coeditors.…”

negative results in social science

“…Yet many of these strategies are prone to bias themselves. Mahoney (1977), Fölster (1995) and Travis and Collins (1991) question the reliability of the peer-review process and assert that reviewers tend to evaluate studies more favourably when they support their own views or conform to the current theoretic mainstream. Mahoney draws the conclusion from his experimental study that there is an apparent and counterproductive prejudice against 'negative' or disconfirming results.…”

Critiques, Ethics, Prestige and Status: A Survey of Editors in Economics

“…For studies examining the relationship between editors and authors and their interconnections, see Laband and Piette ( 1994 ), Medoff ( 2003 ), Brogaard et al ( 2014 ), and Colussi ( 2018 ). For discussion of the concentration of editors in a small number of institutions, see Yotopoulos ( 1961 ), Hodgson and Rothman ( 1999 ), Kocker and Sutter ( 2001 ); Goyal et al ( 2006 ); Fölster ( 1995 ); and Colussi ( 2018 ).…”