Peer Review versus Citations - An Analysis of Best Paper Prizes
No 35, Discussion Papers from Kyiv School of Economics
In this paper, I analyze the ‘best paper’ prizes given by economics and finance journals to the best article published in their journal in a given year. More specifically, I compare the citations received by best paper prize-winning papers to citations received by papers that are awarded runner up prizes and to citations received by non-winning papers. In this way, I evaluate to what extent the prize jury members are able to pick the papers that are ‘best’ in terms of citations. The data show that the paper that gets the ‘best paper’ prize, is rarely the most cited paper; is, in a small majority of cases, cited more than the runner up papers and is, in most cases, cited more than the median paper.
Keywords: peer review; citations; academic quality; performance evaluation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A10 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-sog
Note: Submitted to Economic Journal
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
http://repec.kse.org.ua/pdf/KSE_dp35.pdf November 2010 (application/pdf)
Journal Article: Peer review versus citations – An analysis of best paper prizes (2013)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:kse:dpaper:35
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Discussion Papers from Kyiv School of Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Series data maintained by Iryna Sobetska ().