Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors

David Laband () and Michael J Piette

Journal of Political Economy, 1994, vol. 102, issue 1, 194-203

Abstract: Journal editors who publish papers authored by colleagues and former graduate students have been charged with practicing favoritism, with the implication that the papers in question are of lower quality than those written by scholars with no ties to the editor. Using citation analysis, the authors find strong evidence that although journal editors occasionally publish subpar papers authored by colleagues and former graduate students, on balance their use of professional connections enables them to identify and 'capture' high-impact papers for publication. This implies that a practice interpreted as favoritism by many scholars in fact serves to enhance efficiency in the market for scientific knowledge. Copyright 1994 by University of Chicago Press.

Date: 1994
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (161)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/261927 full text (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers. See http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE for details.

Related works:
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:ucp:jpolec:v:102:y:1994:i:1:p:194-203

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Political Economy from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division ().