IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/amerec/v63y2018i1p94-109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patterns in Economics Journal Acceptances and Rejections

Author

Listed:
  • Suzanne Heller Clain
  • Karen Leppel

Abstract

This study surveyed a sample of authors of articles published in Economics journals to gain insight into their experiences in submitting their manuscripts for publication. We explored factors related to receiving a desk rejection (rejection by editor without the article being sent out for review by referees). We also examined characteristics linked to whether authors were asked by the journal publishing the article to make extensive revisions prior to acceptance. In addition, we studied whether, after rejection, authors were likely to make substantial revisions prior to submission to another journal. Characteristics considered included respondent’s academic rank and prior publishing history at a particular journal, presence of coauthors, authors’ genders, and journal rank. JEL Classifications : A140, J16

Suggested Citation

  • Suzanne Heller Clain & Karen Leppel, 2018. "Patterns in Economics Journal Acceptances and Rejections," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 63(1), pages 94-109, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:amerec:v:63:y:2018:i:1:p:94-109
    DOI: 10.1177/0569434517732542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0569434517732542
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0569434517732542?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Migheli, Matteo & Ramello, Giovanni B., 2014. "Open Access Journals & Academics' Behaviour," IEL Working Papers 18, Institute of Public Policy and Public Choice - POLIS.
    2. Laband, David N & Taylor, Christopher N, 1992. "The Impact of Bad Writing in Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 30(4), pages 673-688, October.
    3. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2014. "Open Access Journals And Academics' Behavior," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(4), pages 1250-1266, October.
    4. John Benson, 2001. "Inside the Editor's Black Box: 10 Years of the Journal of Environmental Planning and Management," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(1), pages 3-19.
    5. Amanda Bayer & Cecilia Elena Rouse, 2016. "Diversity in the Economics Profession: A New Attack on an Old Problem," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(4), pages 221-242, Fall.
    6. 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.
    7. David N. Laband, 1990. "Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 105(2), pages 341-352.
    8. Glenn Ellison, 2002. "The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 947-993, October.
    9. Jason Abrevaya & Daniel S. Hamermesh, 2012. "Charity and Favoritism in the Field: Are Female Economists Nicer (To Each Other)?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(1), pages 202-207, February.
    10. Marianne A. Ferber & Michelle Teiman, 1980. "Are Women Economists at a Disadvantage in Publishing Journal Articles?," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 6(3-4), pages 189-193, Aug-Oct.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Hengel, E., 2017. "Publishing while Female. Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1753, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.

    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. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna & Patricia Funk & Nagore Iriberri, 2020. "Are Referees and Editors in Economics Gender Neutral?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(1), pages 269-327.
    2. Jishnu Das & Quy-Toan Do, 2020. "US and them - The geography of academic research," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 111-114, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    3. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Leah Boustan & Andrew Langan, 2019. "Variation in Women's Success across PhD Programs in Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 23-42, Winter.
    7. Koffi, Marlene, 2021. "Innovative ideas and gender inequality," CLEF Working Paper Series 35, Canadian Labour Economics Forum (CLEF), University of Waterloo.
    8. Steven M. Shugan, 2002. "The Mission of Marketing Science," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 1-13.
    9. Laura Hospido & Carlos Sanz, 2021. "Gender Gaps in the Evaluation of Research: Evidence from Submissions to Economics Conferences," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(3), pages 590-618, June.
    10. Sascha Baghestanian & Sergey V. Popov, 2018. "On publication, refereeing and working hard," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 51(4), pages 1419-1459, November.
    11. Ofer H. Azar, 2007. "The Slowdown In First‐Response Times Of Economics Journals: Can It Be Beneficial?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 179-187, January.
    12. Justus Haucap & Tobias Hartwich & André Uhde, 2005. "Besonderheiten und Wettbewerbsprobleme des Marktes für wissenschaftliche Fachzeitschriften," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 74(3), pages 85-107.
    13. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Bransch, Felix & Kvasnicka, Michael, 2022. "Male Gatekeepers: Gender Bias in the Publishing Process?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 714-732.
    16. Hengel, E., 2017. "Publishing while Female. Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1753, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    17. 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.
    18. Seidl, Christian & Schmidt, Ulrich & Grösche, Peter, 2005. "The Performance of Peer Review and a Beauty Contest of Referee Processes of Economics Journals/," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 23, pages 505-551, Diciembre.
    19. 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.
    20. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2020. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics (RM/19/029-revised-)," Research Memorandum 014, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    scholarly research; publishing in economics; desk rejection; manuscript submission; revise and resubmit;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination

    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:sae:amerec:v:63:y:2018:i:1:p:94-109. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/aex .

    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.