Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions

  • Published:
European Journal of Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Survival in academia depends on publications in refereed journals. Authors only get their papers accepted if they intellectually prostitute themselves by slavishly following the demands made by anonymous referees without property rights to the journals they advise.

Intellectual prostitution is neither beneficial to suppliers nor consumers. But it is avoidable. The editor (with property rights to the journal) should make the basic decision of whether a paper is worth publishing or not. The referees should only offer suggestions on how to improve the paper. The author may disregard this advice. This reduces intellectual prostitution and produces more original publications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akerlof, G. A. & Dickens, W. T. (1982). “The Economic Consequences of Cognitive Dissonance.” American Economic Review. 72(June), 307–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom, T. C. (2001). “Free Labour for Costly Journals?” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 15(4), 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank, R. M. (1991). “The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from the American Economic Review.” American Economic Review. 5, 1041–1068.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaug, M. (1999). Who’s Who in Economics, Third Edn. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaug, M. (2002). “Ugly Currents in Modern Economics.” In U. Mäki (ed.). Fact and Fiction in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. (2000). “Saving the Soul of Classical Economics.” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 1st.

  • Bullough, V. L. & Bullough, B. (1987). Women and Prostitution: A Social History. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassidy, J. (1996). “The Decline of Economics.” New Yorker. 2, 50–60.

  • Cicchetti, D. V. (1991). “The Reliability of Peer Review for Manuscripts and Grant Submissions: A Cross Disciplinary Investigation.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 14, 119–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clower, R. W. (1989). “The State of Economics: Hopeless But Not Serious?” In D. Colander and A. W. Coats (eds.). The Spread of Economic Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. H. (1994). Essays on Economics and Economists. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coe, R. K. & Weinstock, I. (1967). “Editorial Policies of the Major Economics Journals.” Quarterly Review of Economics and Business. 7, 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coupé, T. (2000). “Revealed Performances. Worldwide Rankings of Economists and Economic Departments.” Working Paper, ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles.

  • Diamond, A. (1986). “The Life-Cycle Research Productivity of Mathematicians and Scientists.” Journal of Gerontology. 41, 520–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. (1989). “The Core Journals in Economics.” Current Contents. 1, 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dusansky, R. & Vernon, C. J. (1998). “Rankings of U.S. Economics Departments.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 12(1), 157–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Economist, The (1997). “The Puzzling Failure of Economics.” The Economist. Aug. 23rd, 13.

  • Economist, The (2000). “Economics Forum: The Future of Economics.” The Economist. March 4th, 90.

  • PROBLEMS WITH PUBLISHING: EXISTING STATE AND SOLUTIONS 189 Edlund, L. & Korn, E. (2002). “A Theory of Prostitution.” Journal of Political Economy. 110, 181–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, G. (2000). “The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process.” NBER Working Paper No. W 7804, July.

  • Engers, M. & Gans, J. S. (1998). “Why Referees are not Paid (Enough).” American Economic Review. 88(5), 1341–1350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, R. (1987). “If Homo Economicus Could Choose His Own Utility Function, Would He Want One with a Conscience?” American Economic Review. 77(4), 593–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S. (1997). Not Just For the Money. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S. (1999). Economics as a Science of Human Behaviour, 2nd rev. and extended ed. Edn. Boston and Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S. (2000). Arts and Economics. Analysis and Cultural Policy. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S. (2002). “Do Economists Affect Policy Outcomes?” Working Paper Series, Institute for Empirical Research, University of Zurich.

  • Frey, B. S. & Eichenberger, R. (2000). “The Ranking of Economists and Management Scientists in Europe. A Quantitative Analysis.” Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines. 10(4), 575–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S. & Osterloh, M. (2001). Successful Management by Motivation. Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S. & Pommerehne, W. (1989). Muses and Markets: Explorations in the Economics of the Arts. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gans, J. (2000). Publishing Economics. Analyses of the Academic Journal Market in Economics. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Vol. Elgar.

  • Gans, J. S. & Shepherd, G. B. (1994). “How are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8(1), 165–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerrity, D. M. & McKenzie, R. B. (1978). “The Ranking of Southern Economics Departments: New Criterion and Further Evidence.” Southern Economic Journal. 11(2), 161–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, R. (1998). “Incentives in Organizations.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 12, 115–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, P. E., Marchand, J. R., & Thompson, R. (1982). “Economics Departmental Rankings: Research Incentives, Constraints, and Efficiency.” American Economic Review. 72, 1131–1141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamermesh, D. S. (1994). “Facts andMyths about Refereeing.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8(1), 153–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamermesh, D. S., Johnson, G. E., & Weisbrod, B. A. (1982). “Scholarship, Citations and Salaries: Economic Rewards in Economics.” Southern Economic Journal. 49(2), 472–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, W. L., Weisbrod, B. A., & Strauss, R. P. (1978). “Modeling the Earnings and Research Productivity of Academic Economists.” Journal of Political Economy. 86(4), 729–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchgässner, G. (1992). “Towards a Theory of Low-Cost Decisions.” European Journal of Political Economy. 8, 305–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N. (1985). “Publishing Favoritism: A Critique of Department Rankings Based on Quantitative Publishing Performance.” Southern Economic Journal. 52, 510–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N., McCormick, R. E., & Maloney, M. T. (1990). “The Review Process in Economics: Some Empirical Findings.” Mimeo.

  • Laband, D. N. (1990). “Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics? Preliminary Evidence from Authors.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2, 341–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N. & Piette, M. J. (1994). “Favoritism Versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors.” Journal of Political Economy. 102(1), 194–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leijonhufvud, A. (1973). “Life Among the Econ.” Western Economic Journal. 11(3), 327–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leontief, W. (1971). “Theoretical Assumptions and Nonobserved Facts.” American Economic Journal. 61(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Middleton, R. (1998). Charlatans or Saviours? Economists and the British economy from Marshall to Meade. Northampton MA: Edward Elgar Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, P. & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, Organization and Management. Englewood: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muroi, H. & Sasaki, N. (1997). “Tourism and Prostitution in Japan.” In M. T. Sinclair (ed.). Gender, Work and Tourism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 190 FREY Oster, S. M. & Hamermesh, D. S. (1998). “Aging and Productivity Among Economists.” Review of Economics and Statistics. 80(1), 154–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1994). In Search for a Better World–Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, C. (1999). “The Provision of Incentives in Firms.” Journal of Economic Literature. 37, 7–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reder, M. W. (1999). Economics. The Culture of a Controversial Science. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, R. (1988). “Estimates of the Returns to Quality and Co-authorship in Economic Academia.” Journal of Political Economy. 96, 855–866.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl, C., Schmidt, U., & Grösche, P. (2002). “A Beauty Contest of Referee Processes of Economics Journals: Preliminary Results.” Mimeo, Department of Economics, University of Kiel.

  • Siow, A. (1991). “Are First Impressions Important in Academia?” Journal of Human Resources. 26, 236–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. J. (1982). The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. J., Stigler, S. M., & Friedland, C. (1995). “The Journals of Economics.” Journal of Political Economiy. 103(2), 331–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers, L. H. (2000). “International Financial Crises: Causes, Preventions and Cures.” American Economic Review. 90(2), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Throsby, D. C. (1994). “The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature. 33, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Throsby, D. C. (2000). Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruth, T. (1997). Cultural Economics: The Arts, the Heritage and the Media Industries. Two Volumes. Cheltenham, U.K. and Lyme, U.S.: Edward Elgar.

  • Tuckman, H. P. & Leahey, J. (1975). “What Is an Article Worth?” Journal of Political Economy. 83(5), 951–967.

    Google Scholar 

  • P. A. G. van Bergeijk (ed.) (1997). Economic Science and Practice: The Roles of Academic Economists and Policy-Makers. Cheltenham, UK, and Lyme, NH: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeulen, A. (1972). “Manuscripts in theMaelstrom: A Theory of the Editorial Process.” Public Choice. 13, 107–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yohe, G. W. (1980). “Current Publication Lags in Economics Journals.” Journal of Economic Literature. 18, 1050–1055.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Empirical Economic Research, Bluemlisalpstr. 10, CH-8006, Zurich, Switzerland

    Bruno S. Frey

Authors
  1. Bruno S. Frey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruno S. Frey.

Additional information

JEL Classification: A11, Z00

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frey, B.S. Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions. Eur J Law Econ 19, 173–190 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-005-5426-7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-005-5426-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation