IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v42y2013i1p295-301.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Peer review versus citations – An analysis of best paper prizes

Author

Listed:
  • Coupé, Tom

Abstract

In this paper, I analyze the ‘best paper’ prizes given by economics and finance journals to the best article published in their journal in a given year. More specifically, I compare the citations received by best paper prize-winning papers to citations received by papers that are awarded runner up prizes and to citations received by non-winning papers. In this way, I evaluate to what extent evaluation outcomes based on peer review correspond to evaluation outcomes based on citation counts. The data show that the paper that gets the ‘best paper’ prize, is rarely the most cited paper; is, in a small majority of cases, cited more than the runner up papers and is, in most cases, cited more than the median paper. I also explore whether characteristics of the prizes or the papers correlate with this difference in outcomes between peer review and citation counts and find there is no easy way to reduce the difference in outcomes between these two evaluation methods

Suggested Citation

  • Coupé, Tom, 2013. "Peer review versus citations – An analysis of best paper prizes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 295-301.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:42:y:2013:i:1:p:295-301
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733312001412
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Broder, Ivy E, 1993. "Professional Achievements and Gender Differences among Academic Economists," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(1), pages 116-127, January.
    2. Joshua S. Gans & George B. Shepherd, 1994. "How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 165-179, Winter.
    3. Daniel S. Hamermesh & Peter Schmidt, 2003. "The Determinants of Econometric Society Fellows Elections," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 399-407, January.
    4. Glenn Ellison, 2002. "Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q-r Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 994-1034, October.
    5. Valerie Smeets & Frédèric warzynski & Tom Coupé, 2006. "Does the Academic Labor Market Initially Allocate New Graduates Efficiently?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(3), pages 161-172, Summer.
    6. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner & Schier, Hermann & Rahm, Erhard & Thor, Andreas & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2009. "Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry—Citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published els," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 27-35.
    7. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan Eck & Thed N. Leeuwen & Martijn S. Visser & Anthony F. J. Raan, 2011. "Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 467-481, June.
    8. Blank, Rebecca M, 1991. "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1041-1067, December.
    9. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Journal editors are poor selectors of best papers
      by Economic Logician in Economic Logic on 2011-01-13 21:05:00

    RePEc Biblio mentions

    As found on the RePEc Biblio, the curated bibliography for Economics:
    1. > Economics Profession > Ranking in Economics > Ranking Articles and Papers

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. V. Ginsburgh & Sheila Weyers, 2014. "Nominees, winners, and losers," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 38(4), pages 291-313, November.
    2. Ho Fai Chan & Bruno S. Frey & Jana Gallus & Benno Torgler, 2013. "Does the John Bates Clark Medal boost subsequent productivity and citation success?," ECON - Working Papers 111, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    3. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 2018. "Citations in Economics: Measurement, Uses, and Impacts," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(1), pages 115-156, March.
    4. Hofmeister Robert & Krapf Matthias, 2011. "How Do Editors Select Papers, and How Good are They at Doing It?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ofer H. Azar, 2006. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 50(1), pages 37-50, March.
    2. Jens Prüfer & David Zetland, 2010. "An auction market for journal articles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 379-403, December.
    3. Ofer Azar, 2003. "Rejections and the Importance of First Response Times (Or: How Many Rejections Do Others Receive?)," General Economics and Teaching 0309002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Azar Ofer H., 2015. "A Model of the Academic Review Process with Informed Authors," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 865-889, April.
    5. Justus Haucap & Johannes Muck, 2015. "What drives the relevance and reputation of economics journals? An update from a survey among economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 849-877, June.
    6. Brogaard, Jonathan & Engelberg, Joseph & Parsons, Christopher A., 2014. "Networks and productivity: Causal evidence from editor rotations," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 251-270.
    7. Cherkashin, Ivan & Demidova, Svetlana & Imai, Susumu & Krishna, Kala, 2009. "The inside scoop: Acceptance and rejection at the journal of international economics," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 120-132, February.
    8. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    9. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2017. "What do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Leading Economics Journals," NBER Working Papers 23282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Hofmeister Robert & Krapf Matthias, 2011. "How Do Editors Select Papers, and How Good are They at Doing It?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, October.
    11. Chris Doucouliagos & T.D. Stanley, 2013. "Are All Economic Facts Greatly Exaggerated? Theory Competition And Selectivity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 316-339, April.
    12. Louis Mesnard, 2010. "On Hochberg et al.’s “The tragedy of the reviewer commons”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 903-917, September.
    13. Popov, Sergey V, 2022. "Tactical Refereeing and Signaling by Publishing," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2022/14, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    14. Ruth Ben-Yashar & Shmuel Nitzan, 2001. "Are Referees Sufficiently Informed About The Editor'S Practice?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 1-11, August.
    15. Bruno S. Frey, "undated". "Publishing as Prostitution? Choosing Between One�s Own Ideas and Academic Failure," IEW - Working Papers 117, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    16. Atal, Vidya, 2010. "Do journals accept too many papers?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 229-232, May.
    17. Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Joao Faria, 2012. "Search and research: the influence of editorial boards on journals’ quality," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 687-702, October.
    18. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    19. Steven M. Shugan, 2002. "The Mission of Marketing Science," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 1-13.
    20. Wu, Jiang, 2013. "Investigating the universal distributions of normalized indicators and developing field-independent index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 63-71.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Peer review; Citations; Academic quality; Performance evaluation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A - General Economics and Teaching

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:42:y:2013:i:1:p:295-301. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.