Failure in the market for reviewing economics papers: Good readers, bad referees, and ugly papers

Dimitris Hatzinikolaou

MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany

Abstract: The paper discusses the problem of incompetent and/or irresponsible refereeing of scientific papers, with emphasis on economics papers. To illustrate, I describe my own confrontation with erroneous published papers, and demonstrate that writing comments on such papers does not always solve the problem. Finally, based on previously suggested as well as on currently used solutions, I propose a change in the review process by abolishing referee anonymity and letting the authors appeal publicly if they think their papers have been evaluated improperly. This change will render the process self-correcting.

Keywords: Review process; referee anonymity; causality; endogeneity; spurious regression (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A11 B41 C51 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2012-09-15, Revised 2012-09-26
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Published in International Journal of Management Studies, Statistics & Applied Economics 2.2(2012): pp. 163-176

Downloads: (external link)
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/45384/1/MPRA_paper_45384.pdf original version (application/pdf)

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:pra:mprapa:45384

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Joachim Winter ().