Towards a European economics of economics: Monitoring a decade of top research and providing some explanation

Süßmuth, Bernd; Steininger, Martin; Ghio, Stéphane

doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0042-z

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a nutshell: ''having an editor increases the member of the departments' chance to publish in that journal'' (Coupe 2004). In the case of economics, Hodgson and Rothman (1999) and Sussmuth et al (2006) present data evidencing a strong concentration of editors and authors in few academic institutions of the United States and Europe, and argue that this institutional oligopoly may be unhealthy for the development of innovative research.…”

Section: Editorial Boardsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Interlocking editorship. A network analysis of the links between economic journals

Baccini

Barabesi

2009

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The exploratory analysis developed in this paper relies on the hypothesis that each editor possesses some power in the definition of the editorial policy of her journal. Consequently if the same scholar sits on the board of editors of two journals, those journals could have some common elements in their editorial policies. The proximity of the editorial policies of two scientific journals can be assessed by the number of common editors sitting on their boards. A database of all editors of ECONLIT journals is used. The structure of the network generated by interlocking editorship is explored by applying the instruments of network analysis. Evidence has been found of a compact network containing different components. This is interpreted as the result of a plurality of perspectives about the appropriate methods for the investigation of problems and the construction of theories within the domain of economics

show abstract

Section: Editorial Boardsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Interlocking editorship. A network analysis of the links between economic journals

Baccini

Barabesi

2009

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some other studies have analysed the influence of authors and institutions (Autor ; Kocher and Sutter ; Süssmuth et al. ). Other researchers have developed a regional approach, the European region in particular (Coupé ; Lubrano et al.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, several similar studies have been developed (Card and DellaVigna 2013;Laband 2013;Stern 2013). Some other studies have analysed the influence of authors and institutions (Autor 2012;Kocher and Sutter 2001;Süssmuth et al 2006). Other researchers have developed a regional approach, the European region in particular (Coupé 2003;Lubrano et al 2003).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting Research: A Bibliometric Analysis

Merigó

Yang

2016

Australian Accounting Review

182

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bibliometrics is a fundamental field of information science that studies bibliographic material quantitatively. It is very useful for organising available knowledge within a specific scientific discipline. This study presents a bibliometric overview of accounting research using the Web of Science database, identifying the most relevant research in the field classified by papers, authors, journals, institutions and countries. The results show that the most influential journals are: The Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Accounting Research, The Accounting Review and Accounting, Organizations and Society. It also shows that US institutions are the most influential worldwide. However, it is important to note that some very good research in this area, including a small number of papers and citations, may not show up in this study due to the specific characteristics of different subtopics.

show abstract

“…As an illustration of the ''cliquishness'' in economics,Süssmuth et al (2006) denounce the ''institutional oligopolies'' between editors and authors that may exist in European economic institutions.4 Snizek and Fuhrman (1979b) indicate that, in this matter, no bias is found between journals. 5 This is discussed for today's Russia Academy of Science; seeFortescue (1992).6 That does not mean that the peer-review process is never able to select the best papers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On Hochberg et al.’s “The tragedy of the reviewer commons”

Mesnard

2009

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We discuss each of the recommendations made by Hochberg et al. (Ecol Lett 12:2-4, 2009) to prevent the ''tragedy of the reviewer commons''. Having scientific journals share a common database of reviewers would be to recreate a bureaucratic organization, where extra-scientific considerations prevailed. Pre-reviewing of papers by colleagues is a widespread practice but raises problems of coordination. Revising manuscripts in line with all reviewers' recommendations presupposes that recommendations converge, which is acrobatic. Signing an undertaking that authors have taken into accounts all reviewers' comments is both authoritarian and sterilizing. Sending previous comments with subsequent submissions to other journals amounts to creating a cartel and a single allencompassing journal, which again is sterilizing. Using young scientists as reviewers is highly risky: they might prove very severe; and if they are not yet published authors themselves, the recommendation violates the principle of peer review. Asking reviewers to be more severe would only create a crisis in the publishing houses and actually increase reviewers' workloads. The criticisms of the behavior of authors looking to publish in the best journals are unfair: it is natural for scholars to try to publish in the best journals and not to resign themselves to being second rate. Punishing lazy reviewers would only lower the quality of reports: instead, we favor the idea of paying reviewers ''in kind'' with, say, complimentary books or papers.

show abstract

Towards a European economics of economics: Monitoring a decade of top research and providing some explanation

Cited by 16 publications

References 17 publications

Interlocking editorship. A network analysis of the links between economic journals

Interlocking editorship. A network analysis of the links between economic journals

Accounting Research: A Bibliometric Analysis

On Hochberg et al.’s “The tragedy of the reviewer commons”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About