IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rtv/ceisrp/161.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Research standards for the Italian young academics: what has changed over the last thirty years?

Author

Abstract

In this paper the authors present the findings of their research on a vast database containing the relevant information on the scientific characteristics of the three cohorts of assistant professors recruited in Italy in the early 1980s, the 1990s and the first few years of the new millennium. Their first objective is to trace out the scientific profile of the assistant professor in the early 1980s and the changes that came about in the following twenty-five years due to general changes in the profession and in the specific conditions of the Italian academic market. The second aim is to se what turn in direction the scientific standard has taken for access to a career as a young professor of economics, the number and typology of publciations, the fields of reasearch.

Suggested Citation

  • Adriano Birolo & Annalisa Rosselli, 2010. "Research standards for the Italian young academics: what has changed over the last thirty years?," CEIS Research Paper 161, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 28 May 2010.
    • Handle: RePEc:rtv:ceisrp:161
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ceistorvergata.it/RePEc/rpaper/RP161.pdf
    File Function: Main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frederic S. Lee, 2007. "The Research Assessment Exercise, the state and the dominance of mainstream economics in British universities," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 31(2), pages 309-325, March.
    2. Andrew J. Oswald, 2007. "An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision‐Makers," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(293), pages 21-31, February.
    3. Hodgson, Geoffrey M & Rothman, Harry, 1999. "The Editors and Authors of Economics Journals: A Case of Institutional Oligopoly?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages 165-186, February.
    4. Holub, Hans Werner, 1989. "Theory versus Empiricism in Academic Economics: Update and Comparison: Comments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 207-209, Fall.
    5. Pranab Bardhan, 2003. "Journal publication in economics: a view from the periphery," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(488), pages 332-337, June.
    6. Hendrik P. van Dalen, 2003. "Pluralism in Economics: A Public Good or a Public Bad?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-034/1, Tinbergen Institute, revised 18 May 2004.
    7. repec:bla:jfinan:v:53:y:1998:i:3:p:1053-1079 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Hey, John D, 1989. "Reply [Theory versus Empiricism in Academic Economics: Update and Comparison]," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 209-210, Fall.
    9. Roberto Artoni, 2007. "Valutazione della ricerca e pluralismo in economia politica," Rivista italiana degli economisti, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 2, pages 191-204.
    10. Morgan, Theodore, 1988. "Theory versus Empiricism in Academic Economics: Update and Comparison s," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 159-164, Fall.
    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. Are academics still dysfunctional in Italy?
      by Economic Logician in Economic Logic on 2010-07-09 19:49:00

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Libman & Joachim Zweynert, 2014. "Ceremonial Science: The State of Russian Economics Seen Through the Lens of the Work of ‘Doctor of Science’ Candidates," Working Papers 337, Leibniz Institut für Ost- und Südosteuropaforschung (Institute for East and Southeast European Studies).
    2. Zacchia, Giulia, 2016. "Segregation or homologation? Gender differences in recent Italian economic thought," MPRA Paper 72279, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Libman, Alexander & Zweynert, Joachim, 2014. "Ceremonial science: The state of Russian economics seen through the lens of the work of ‘Doctor of Science’ candidates," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 360-378.
    4. Birolo, Adriano, 2010. "La ricerca economica in Italia tra pluralismo e monismo: i giovani economisti negli ultimi trent’anni [The Italian economic research between pluralism and monism: the young economists in the last t," MPRA Paper 27219, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Matthias Aistleitner & Jakob Kapeller & Stefan Steinerberger, 2018. "Citation Patterns in Economics and Beyond," Working Papers Series 85, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    2. Marcella Corsi & Carlo D'Ippoliti & Federico Lucidi, 2011. "On the Evaluation of Economic Research: The Case of Italy," Economia politica, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 3, pages 369-402.
    3. Birolo, Adriano, 2010. "La ricerca economica in Italia tra pluralismo e monismo: i giovani economisti negli ultimi trent’anni [The Italian economic research between pluralism and monism: the young economists in the last t," MPRA Paper 27219, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. 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.
    5. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    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. Daniel Sgroi & Andrew J. Oswald, 2013. "How Should Peer‐review Panels Behave?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 255-278, August.
    8. Ernest Aigner & Florentin Gloetzl & Matthias Aistleitner & Jakob Kapeller, 2018. "The focus of academic economics: before and after the crisis," ICAE Working Papers 75, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.
    9. 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.
    10. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2010. "Academic rankings and research governance," IEW - Working Papers 482, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    11. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2009. "Research Governance in Academia: Are there Alternatives to Academic Rankings?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2009-17, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    12. Oswald, Andrew J & Ralsmark, Hilda, 2008. "Some Evidence on the Future of Economics," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 841, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    13. 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.
    14. Bruno S. Frey & Katja Rost, 2010. "Do Rankings Reflect Research Quality?," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 1-38, May.
    15. Arne HEISE, 2016. "‘Why has economics turned out this way?’ A socio-economic note on the explanation of monism in economics," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 81-101, November.
    16. Marcella Corsi & Carlo D'Ippoliti & Federico Lucidi, 2010. "Pluralism at Risk? Heterodox Economic Approaches and the Evaluation of Economic Research in Italy," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(5), pages 1495-1529, November.
    17. William A. Jackson, 2018. "Strategic Pluralism and Monism in Heterodox Economics," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 50(2), pages 237-251, June.
    18. 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.
    19. Jakob Kapeller & Matthias Aistleitner & Stefan Steinerberger, 2017. "Citation Patterns in Economics and Beyond: Assessing the Peculiarities of Economics from Two Scientometric Perspectives," ICAE Working Papers 60, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.
    20. Pantelis Kalaitzidakis & Theofanis P. Mamuneas & Thanasis Stengos, 2011. "An updated ranking of academic journals in economics," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 44(4), pages 1525-1538, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Evolution of the scientific standard; research output; representative economist; academic market for economists; evaluation.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists
    • A14 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Sociology of Economics
    • B23 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought since 1925 - - - Econometrics; Quantitative and Mathematical Studies
    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Economic Logic blog

    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:rtv:ceisrp:161. 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: Barbara Piazzi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csrotit.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.