European Journal of Law and Economics

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 173–190 | Cite as

Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions

  • Bruno S. Frey


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.


academic career market for economists publishing 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akerlof, G. A. & Dickens, W. T. (1982). “The Economic Consequences of Cognitive Dissonance.” American Economic Review. 72(June), 307–319.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, G. S. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bergstrom, T. C. (2001). “Free Labour for Costly Journals?” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 15(4), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Blaug, M. (1999). Who’s Who in Economics, Third Edn. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  6. Blaug, M. (2002). “Ugly Currents in Modern Economics.” In U. Mäki (ed.). Fact and Fiction in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J. M. (2000). “Saving the Soul of Classical Economics.” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 1st.Google Scholar
  8. Bullough, V. L. & Bullough, B. (1987). Women and Prostitution: A Social History. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  9. Cassidy, J. (1996). “The Decline of Economics.” New Yorker. 2, 50–60.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Coase, R. H. (1994). Essays on Economics and Economists. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Coe, R. K. & Weinstock, I. (1967). “Editorial Policies of the Major Economics Journals.” Quarterly Review of Economics and Business. 7, 37–43.Google Scholar
  14. Coupé, T. (2000). “Revealed Performances. Worldwide Rankings of Economists and Economic Departments.” Working Paper, ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  15. Diamond, A. (1986). “The Life-Cycle Research Productivity of Mathematicians and Scientists.” Journal of Gerontology. 41, 520–525.Google Scholar
  16. Diamond, A. (1989). “The Core Journals in Economics.” Current Contents. 1, 4–11.Google Scholar
  17. Dusansky, R. & Vernon, C. J. (1998). “Rankings of U.S. Economics Departments.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 12(1), 157–170.Google Scholar
  18. Economist, The (1997). “The Puzzling Failure of Economics.” The Economist. Aug. 23rd, 13.Google Scholar
  19. Economist, The (2000). “Economics Forum: The Future of Economics.” The Economist. March 4th, 90.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Ellison, G. (2000). “The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process.” NBER Working Paper No. W 7804, July.Google Scholar
  22. Engers, M. & Gans, J. S. (1998). “Why Referees are not Paid (Enough).” American Economic Review. 88(5), 1341–1350.Google Scholar
  23. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Frey, B. S. (1997). Not Just For the Money. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA: Elgar.Google Scholar
  26. Frey, B. S. (1999). Economics as a Science of Human Behaviour, 2nd rev. and extended ed. Edn. Boston and Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  27. Frey, B. S. (2000). Arts and Economics. Analysis and Cultural Policy. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Frey, B. S. (2002). “Do Economists Affect Policy Outcomes?” Working Paper Series, Institute for Empirical Research, University of Zurich.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Frey, B. S. & Osterloh, M. (2001). Successful Management by Motivation. Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Frey, B. S. & Pommerehne, W. (1989). Muses and Markets: Explorations in the Economics of the Arts. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Gans, J. (2000). Publishing Economics. Analyses of the Academic Journal Market in Economics. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Vol. Elgar.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Gibbons, R. (1998). “Incentives in Organizations.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 12, 115–132.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Hamermesh, D. S. (1994). “Facts andMyths about Refereeing.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8(1), 153–164.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. Kirchgässner, G. (1992). “Towards a Theory of Low-Cost Decisions.” European Journal of Political Economy. 8, 305–320.Google Scholar
  41. Laband, D. N. (1985). “Publishing Favoritism: A Critique of Department Rankings Based on Quantitative Publishing Performance.” Southern Economic Journal. 52, 510–515.Google Scholar
  42. Laband, D. N., McCormick, R. E., & Maloney, M. T. (1990). “The Review Process in Economics: Some Empirical Findings.” Mimeo.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. Leijonhufvud, A. (1973). “Life Among the Econ.” Western Economic Journal. 11(3), 327–337.Google Scholar
  46. Leontief, W. (1971). “Theoretical Assumptions and Nonobserved Facts.” American Economic Journal. 61(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  47. Middleton, R. (1998). Charlatans or Saviours? Economists and the British economy from Marshall to Meade. Northampton MA: Edward Elgar Publisher.Google Scholar
  48. Milgrom, P. & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, Organization and Management. Englewood: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  49. Muroi, H. & Sasaki, N. (1997). “Tourism and Prostitution in Japan.” In M. T. Sinclair (ed.). Gender, Work and Tourism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Popper, K. R. (1994). In Search for a Better World–Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Prendergast, C. (1999). “The Provision of Incentives in Firms.” Journal of Economic Literature. 37, 7–63.Google Scholar
  53. Reder, M. W. (1999). Economics. The Culture of a Controversial Science. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Sauer, R. (1988). “Estimates of the Returns to Quality and Co-authorship in Economic Academia.” Journal of Political Economy. 96, 855–866.Google Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. Siow, A. (1991). “Are First Impressions Important in Academia?” Journal of Human Resources. 26, 236–255.Google Scholar
  57. Stigler, G. J. (1982). The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Stigler, G. J., Stigler, S. M., & Friedland, C. (1995). “The Journals of Economics.” Journal of Political Economiy. 103(2), 331–359.Google Scholar
  59. Summers, L. H. (2000). “International Financial Crises: Causes, Preventions and Cures.” American Economic Review. 90(2), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Throsby, D. C. (2000). Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Ruth, T. (1997). Cultural Economics: The Arts, the Heritage and the Media Industries. Two Volumes. Cheltenham, U.K. and Lyme, U.S.: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  63. Tuckman, H. P. & Leahey, J. (1975). “What Is an Article Worth?” Journal of Political Economy. 83(5), 951–967.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. Vandermeulen, A. (1972). “Manuscripts in theMaelstrom: A Theory of the Editorial Process.” Public Choice. 13, 107–111.Google Scholar
  66. Yohe, G. W. (1980). “Current Publication Lags in Economics Journals.” Journal of Economic Literature. 18, 1050–1055.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Empirical Economic ResearchZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations