Are leading papers of better quality? Evidence from a natural experiment
Victor Ginsburgh () and
Abdul Noury ()
No 9, Discussion Papers from Kyiv School of Economics
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.
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-cbe, nep-edu, nep-exp, nep-hpe and nep-sog
Note: Under review in Oxford Economic Papers
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations View citations in EconPapers (3) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
http://repec.kse.org.ua/pdf/KSE_dp9.pdf First version, Jun 2008 (application/pdf)
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 (2009)
Working Paper: Are Leading Papers of Better Quality? Evidence from a Natural Experiment (2008)
Working Paper: Are leading papers of better quality? Evidence from a natural experiment
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:9
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 ().