IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rfinst/v28y2015i3p637-649..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Editor's Choice Editorial: Cosmetic Surgery in the Academic Review Process

Author

Listed:
  • David Hirshleifer

Abstract

Has the academic review process become excessive? In a setting where editors cannot distinguish significant flaws from mere blemishes, reviewers recommend the repair of blemishes in order to acquire reputations for high skill. In equilibrium, editors accede to reviewer insistence upon such cosmetic surgery. If blemishes are sometimes unremovable, demands for repair sometimes block good papers from publication. This implies a social value to active editing. Reviewer signal-jamming may especially suppress innovative research and research designed to verify others' findings. This perspective strongly suggests that the growth of the review process is harmful. I therefore offer tentative proposals for reform.

Suggested Citation

  • David Hirshleifer, 2015. "Editor's Choice Editorial: Cosmetic Surgery in the Academic Review Process," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 28(3), pages 637-649.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rfinst:v:28:y:2015:i:3:p:637-649.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rfs/hhu093
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Brooks, Chris & Fenton, Evelyn & Schopohl, Lisa & Walker, James, 2019. "Why does research in finance have so little impact?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 24-52.
    2. Craig W. Holden, 2017. "Do Acceptance and Publication Times Differ Across Finance Journals?," The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 6(1), pages 102-126.
    3. Gehrig, Thomas & Stenbacka, Rune, 2021. "Journal competition and the quality of published research: Simultaneous versus sequential screening," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    4. Alex Edmans, 2022. "The purpose of a finance professor," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 3-26, March.
    5. Bayar, Onur & Chemmanur, Thomas J., 2021. "A model of the editorial process in academic journals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    6. Jonathan B. Berk & Campbell R. Harvey & David Hirshleifer, 2017. "How to Write an Effective Referee Report and Improve the Scientific Review Process," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(1), pages 231-244, Winter.
    7. Berninger, Marc & Kiesel, Florian & Schiereck, Dirk & Gaar, Eduard, 2021. "Citations and the readers’ information-extracting costs of finance articles," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).

    More about this item

    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:oup:rfinst:v:28:y:2015:i:3:p:637-649.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfsssea.html .

    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.