What Do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Economics Journals
David Card and
Stefano DellaVigna ()
The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2020, vol. 102, issue 1, 195-217
We study editorial decisions using anonymized submissions matched to citations at four leading economics journals. We develop a benchmark model in which editors maximize the expected quality of accepted papers and citations are unbiased measures of quality. We then generalize the model to allow different quality thresholds, systematic gaps between citations and quality, and a direct impact of publication on citations. We find that referee recommendations are strong predictors of citations and that editors follow these recommendations closely. We document two deviations from the benchmark model. First, papers by highly published authors receive more citations, conditional on the referees' recommendations and publication status. Second, recommendations of highly published referees are equally predictive of future citations, yet editors give their views significantly more weight.
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (34) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Access to PDF is restricted to subscribers.
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:tpr:restat:v:102:y:2020:i:1:p:195-217
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://mitpressjour ... rnal/?issn=0034-6535
Access Statistics for this article
The Review of Economics and Statistics is currently edited by Amitabh Chandra, Olivier Coibion, Bryan S. Graham, Shachar Kariv, Amit K. Khandelwal, Asim Ijaz Khwaja, Brigitte C. Madrian and Rohini Pande
More articles in The Review of Economics and Statistics from MIT Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Ann Olson ().