Are Leading Papers of Better Quality? Evidence from a Natural Experiment

Tom Coupé, Victor Ginsburgh and Abdul Noury ()

No 2008_014, Working Papers ECARES from ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles

Abstract: Leading papers in a journal’s issue attract, on average, more citations than those that follow. It is, however, difficult to assess whether they are of better quality (as is often suggested), or whether this happens just because they appear first in an issue. We make use of a natural experiment that was carried out by a journal in which papers are randomly ordered in some issues, while this order is not random in others. We show that leading papers in randomly ordered issues also attract more citations, which casts some doubt on whether, in general, leading papers are of higher quality.

Pages: 16 p.
Date: 2008
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-cbe, nep-edu, nep-exp, nep-hpe and nep-sog
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Published by:

Downloads: (external link)
https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/5408 ... _wpaper_2008_014.pdf RePEc_eca_wpaper_2008_014 (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Are leading papers of better quality? Evidence from a natural experiment (2010)
Working Paper: Are leading papers of better quality? Evidence from a natural experiment (2010)
Working Paper: Are leading papers of better quality? Evidence from a natural experiment (2008)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eca:wpaper:2008_014

Ordering information: This working paper can be ordered from
http://hdl.handle.ne ... ulb.ac.be:2013/54082

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers ECARES from ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Benoit Pauwels ().