IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zur/iewwpx/282.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas

Author

Listed:
  • Benno Torgler,
  • Sascha L. Schmidt
  • Bruno S. Frey

Abstract

In this paper we present a two period model, where the agent's preferences are described by prospect theory as proposed by Kahneman and Tversky. We solve for the agent's portfolio decision. Our findings are that the changes in portfolio weights depend crucially on the reference point and the ratio between the reference point and the current wealth, and thus only indirectly on the performance of the risky asset. Our model explains why investor keep on holding, or even buy, loosing investments.

Suggested Citation

  • Benno Torgler, & Sascha L. Schmidt & Bruno S. Frey, 2006. "The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas," IEW - Working Papers 282, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    • Handle: RePEc:zur:iewwpx:282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/52239/1/iewwp282.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1992. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 383-397, August.
    2. Dag W. Aksnes, 2006. "Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(2), pages 169-185, January.
    3. Frey, Bruno S, 2003. "Publishing as Prostitution?--Choosing between One's Own Ideas and Academic Success," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 116(1-2), pages 205-223, July.
    4. 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.
    5. R. K. Pachauri & Sujata Gupta, 2002. "Editorial," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2-3), pages 127-128, September.
    6. William H. Starbuck, 2005. "How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals? The Statistics of Academic Publication," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 180-200, April.
    7. 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.
    8. R. Purdy, 2002. "Editorial," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1-2, March.
    9. B Kogut & U Zander, 2003. "A memoir and reflection: knowledge and an evolutionary theory of the multinational firm 10 years later," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 34(6), pages 505-515, November.
    10. Juan Miguel Campanario, 1996. "Have referees rejected some of the most‐cited articles of all times?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 47(4), pages 302-310, April.
    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. Jens Prüfer & David Zetland, 2010. "An auction market for journal articles," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 379-403, December.
    2. Alfred Kieser, 2007. "Entwicklung von Organisationstheorien als Zeitgeistphänomen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 59(6), pages 678-705, September.
    3. Oswald, Andrew J., 2008. "Can We Test for Bias in Scientific Peer-Review?," IZA Discussion Papers 3665, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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. Moizer, Peter, 2009. "Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 285-304, February.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. João Faria & Rajeev Goel, 2010. "Returns to networking in academia," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 103-117, July.
    5. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    6. Salomón Kalmanovitz & Enrique López, 2003. "La Agricultura En Colombia Entre 1950 Y 2000," Borradores de Economia 2937, Banco de la Republica.
    7. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    8. Jan Ours & Frederic Vermeulen, 2007. "Ranking Dutch Economists," De Economist, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 469-487, December.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Azar, Ofer H., 2008. "Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 420-435, March.
    12. Verbeck, Matthias, 2015. "Contracting with Researchers," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112963, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    13. Gabriela B. Christmann & Karsten Balgar & Nicole Mahlkow, 2014. "Local Constructions of Vulnerability and Resilience in the Context of Climate Change. A Comparison of Lübeck and Rostock," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-18, February.
    14. Oswald, Andrew J., 2015. "The Objective Measurement of World-Leading Research," IZA Discussion Papers 8829, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Joshua K Ault & Aloysius Newenham-Kahindi & Sanjay Patnaik, 2021. "Trevino and Doh’s discourse-based view: Do we need a new theory of internationalization?," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(7), pages 1394-1406, September.
    16. Thompson, Gary D. & Aradhyula, Satheesh V. & Frisvold, George B. & Tronstad, Russell, 2004. "Does Paying Referees Expedite Reviews?," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19988, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. 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.
    18. Oswald, Andrew J., 2009. "World-Leading Research and its Measurement," Economic Research Papers 271312, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    19. Frank H. Westerhoff & Cristian Wieland, 2004. "Spillover Dynamics of Central Bank Interventions," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 5(4), pages 435-450, November.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Disposition effect; house money effect; prospect theory; port-folio choice;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D00 - Microeconomics - - General - - - General
    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • D92 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Intertemporal Firm Choice, Investment, Capacity, and Financing
    • L83 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Sports; Gambling; Restaurants; Recreation; Tourism

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zur:iewwpx:282. 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: Severin Oswald (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.