IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/4482.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process

Author

Listed:
  • Azar, Ofer H.

Abstract

The article presents a model of social norm evolution, which suggests how the increase in optimal and actual first response times (FRT) of economics journals can be related. When the optimal FRT and the norm about how much time refereeing should take increase, it seems that the existence of a norm increases the average refereeing time. The model suggests the surprising result that this is not necessarily true. I also discuss applications of the model in other contexts, differences in the optimal FRT between disciplines, the effects of the FRT on the tenure process, and strategic behavior of referees.

Suggested Citation

  • Azar, Ofer H., 2002. "Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process," MPRA Paper 4482, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:4482
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4482/1/MPRA_paper_4482.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Juin‐jen Chang & Ching‐chong Lai, 2001. "Is It Worthwhile to Pay Referees?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(2), pages 457-463, October.
    2. Theodore C. Bergstrom, 2001. "Free Labour for Costly Journals?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 183-198, Fall.
    3. 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.
    4. Mark J. McCabe, 2002. "Journal Pricing and Mergers: A Portfolio Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 259-269, March.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Azar, Ofer H., 2004. "What sustains social norms and how they evolve?: The case of tipping," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 49-64, May.
    9. Engers, Maxim & Gans, Joshua S, 1998. "Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1341-1349, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Sethi, Rajiv, 1996. "Evolutionary stability and social norms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 113-140, January.
    12. Ofer H. Azar, 2004. "Rejections and the importance of first response times," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 31(3), pages 259-274, March.
    13. Thomson, William, 2011. "A Guide for the Young Economist," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 026251589x, April.
    14. Anonymous, 1987. "Editors' Report, 1987," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 149-152, July.
    15. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Facts and Myths about Refereeing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 153-163, Winter.
    16. Juin-jen Chang & Ching-chong Lai, 2001. "Is It Worthwhile to Pay Referees?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(2), pages 457-463, October.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Sethi, Rajiv & Somanathan, E, 1996. "The Evolution of Social Norms in Common Property Resource Use," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(4), pages 766-788, September.
    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. Amrish Patel & Edward Cartwright, 2012. "Naïve Beliefs and the Multiplicity of Social Norms," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 168(2), pages 280-289, June.
    2. Nøstbakken, Linda, 2013. "Formal and informal quota enforcement," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 191-215.
    3. Canoy Marcel & Veld Daan L. in ’t, 2014. "How to Boost the Production of Free Services: In Search of the Holy Referee Grail," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 79-92, June.
    4. Azar, Ofer H. & Applebaum, Mark, 2020. "Do children cheat to be honored? A natural experiment on dishonesty in a math competition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 143-157.
    5. Heintzelman Martin & Nocetti Diego, 2009. "Where Should we Submit our Manuscript? An Analysis of Journal Submission Strategies," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-28, September.
    6. Gavrilets, Sergey & Tverskoi, Denis & Sánchez, Angel, 2023. "Modeling social norms: an integration of the norm-utility approach with beliefs dynamics," SocArXiv n934a, Center for Open Science.
    7. Ofer H. Azar & David M. Brock, 2008. "A Citation‐Based Ranking of Strategic Management Journals," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(3), pages 781-802, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Squazzoni, Flaminio & Bravo, Giangiacomo & Takács, Károly, 2013. "Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 287-294.
    10. Damien Besancenot & João Ricardo Faria & Franklin G. Mixon, 2017. "Academic Research and the Strategic Interaction of Scholars and Editors: A Two-Stage Game," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(01), pages 1-16, March.
    11. Agnès Festré, 2010. "Incentives And Social Norms: A Motivation‐Based Economic Analysis Of Social Norms," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 511-538, July.
    12. Azar, Ofer H., 2008. "The impact of economics on management," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 667-675, December.
    13. 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.
    14. Chih, Yao-Yu, 2016. "Social network structure and government provision crowding-out on voluntary contributions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 83-90.

    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. 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.
    3. Sascha Baghestanian & Sergey V. Popov, 2018. "On publication, refereeing and working hard," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 1419-1459, November.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2008. "Can incentives for research harm research? A business schools' tale," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1248-1265, June.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Moizer, Peter, 2009. "Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 285-304, February.
    10. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    11. Squazzoni, Flaminio & Bravo, Giangiacomo & Takács, Károly, 2013. "Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 287-294.
    12. 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.
    13. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Damien Besancenot & João Ricardo Faria & Franklin G. Mixon, 2017. "Academic Research and the Strategic Interaction of Scholars and Editors: A Two-Stage Game," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(01), pages 1-16, March.
    16. Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, 2017. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 633-650, October.
    17. Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Radu Vranceanu, 2011. "A Matching Model of the Academic Publication Market," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 167(4), pages 708-725, December.
    18. Louis de Mesnard, 2014. "On the marketization of the academic review process. (VF) Sur la marchandisation du processus de referee des revues académiques," Working Papers CREGO 1141001, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
    19. Azar, Ofer H., 2007. "Behavioral economics and socio-economics journals: A citation-based ranking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 451-462, June.
    20. Damien Besancenot & Joao R. Faria & Kim Van Huynh, 2009. "Congestion in academic journals under an impartial selection process," Working Papers halshs-00382585, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    social norms; evolution; first response times; refereeing; academic publishing; turnaround times; journals; review process;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L82 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Entertainment; Media
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification
    • A14 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Sociology of Economics
    • A10 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - General
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions

    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:pra:mprapa:4482. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.