Peer review bibliography
Below is a list of references organized by section of the report. Each sublist enumerates references that appear in the report as well as additional references that fall under the same topic. The list is clearly non-exhaustive — the body of relevant literature goes far beyond what is listed here. We will include additional references upon suggestion.
1. Introduction
- Mason, Paul M., Jeffrey W. Steagall, and Michael M. Fabritius, “Publication delays in articles in economics: what to do about them,” Applied Economics, 1992, 24, 859–874. doi.org/10.1080/00036849200000054
- Mulligan, Adrian, Louise Hall, and Ellen Raphael, “Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64 (1), 132–161. doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798
- Silbiger, Nyssa and Amber Stubler, “Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM,” PeerJ, 2019, 7. doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8247
- Tennant, Jonathan, Jonathan Dugan, Daniel Graziotin, Damien Jacques, Francois Waldner, Daniel Mietchen, Yehia Elkhatib, Lauren Collister, Christina Pikas, Tom Crick, Paola Masuzzo, Anthony Caravaggi, Devin Berg, Kyle Niemeyer, Tony Ross-Hellauer, Sara Mannheimer, Lillian Rigling, Daniel S. Katz, Bastian Tzovaras, and Julien Colomb, “A multidisciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review,” F1000Research, 11 2017, 6, 1151. doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
3.2 ALLOCATING PAPERS TO JOURNALS, REFEREES, AND EDITORS
- Andre, Peter and Armin Falk, “What’s Worth Knowing? Economists’ Opinions about Economics,” IZA Discussion Paper No. 14527, 2021. ssrn.com/abstract=3886832
- Angus, Simon D., Kadir Atalay, Jonathan Newton, and David Ubilava, “Geographic diversity in economic publishing,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2021, 190, 255–262. doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.08.005
- Azar, Ofer H., “Rejections and the importance of first response times,” International Journal of Social Economics, 2004, 31 (3), 259–274. dx.doi.org/10.1108/03068290410518247
- Blank, Rebecca M, “The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review,” American Economic Review, 1991, 81 (5), 1041–1067. www.jstor.org/stable/2006906
- Brogaard, Jonathan, Joseph Engelberg, and Christopher A. Parsons, “Networks and productivity: Causal evidence from editor rotations,” Journal of Financial Economics, 2014, 111 (1), 251–270. doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.10.006
- Carrell, Scott E, David N Figlio, and Lester R Lusher, “Clubs and Networks in Economics Reviewing,”
Working Paper 29631, National Bureau of Economic Research January 2022. doi.org/10.3386/w29631 - Colussi, Tommaso, “Social Ties in Academia: A Friend Is a Treasure,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2018, 100 (1), 45–50. doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00666
- Ersoy, Fulya and Jennifer Pate, “Invisible Hurdles: Gender and Institutional Bias in the Publication Process in Economics,” Working Paper, 2021. dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3870368
- Eve, Katie, Bahar Mehmani, and Kate Wilson, “How to improve reviewer diversity: a toolkit for editors (part I),” 2021. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/how-to-improve-reviewer- diversity-a-toolkit-for-editors-part-i
—, —, and --, “How to improve reviewer diversity: a toolkit for editors (part II),” 2021. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/how-to-improve-reviewer-diversity-a-toolkit- for-editors-part-ii
—, —, and --,“Peer review diversity in action,” 2021. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers- update/peer-review-diversity-in-action - Goldberg, Pinelopi Koujianou, “Report of the Editor: American Economic Review,” American Economic Review, 2012, 102 (3), 653–65. doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.3.653
- Heckman, James J. and Sidharth Moktan, “Publishing and Promotion in Economics: The Tyranny of the Top Five,” Journal of Economic Literature, 2020, 58 (2), 419–470. doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191574
- Hengel, Erin, “Publishing while female: Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review,” Working Paper, 2021. www.erinhengel.com/research/publishing_female.pdf
- McAfee, R, “Edifying Editing,” American Economist, 03 2010, 55. doi.org/10.1177/0569434515626856
- Moore, Jessica L, E. Neilson, and Vivian Siegel, “Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors.,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN, 2011, 22 9, 1598–602. doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2011070643
- Snodgrass, Richard, “Single- Versus Double-Blind Reviewing: An Analysis of the Literature,” SIGMOD Record, 2006, 35, 8–21. doi.org/10.1145/1168092.1168094
- Teixeira da Silva, Jaime and Aceil Alkhatib, “Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?,” Science and Engineering Ethics, 2018, 24, 275–285. doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9842-6
3.3 CONTENT OF THE REPORTS
- Allgood, Sam, Lisa D. Cook, Nick Bloom, Sandra E. Black, Marianne Bertrand, Amanda Bayer, and Lee Badgett, “AEA Professional Climate Survey: Final Report,” 2019. www.aeaweb.org/resources/member-docs/final-climate-survey-results-sept-2019
- Armstrong, J. Scott, “Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation,” Science and Engineering Ethics, 1997, 3 (1), 63–84. doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0017-3
- Berk, Jonathan, Campbell Harvey, and David Hirshleifer, “A Checklist for Reviewing a Paper,” Duke I&E Research Paper No. 2017-03, 2016. dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2887708
—, —, --,“Preparing a Referee Report: Guidelines and Perspectives,” Working Paper, 2015. dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2547191
—, —, --, “How to Write an Effective Referee Report and Improve the Scientific Review Process,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2017, 31, 231–244. doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.1.231 - Card, David and Stefano DellaVigna and Patricia Funk, “What Do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Economics Journals,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2020, 102, 195–217. doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00839
- Dupas, Pascaline, Alicia Sasser Modestino, Muriel Niederle, Justin Wolfers, and The Seminar Collective, “Gender and the Dynamics of Economics Seminars,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 28494, 2021. doi.org/10.3386/w28494
- Forscher, Patrick S., Markus Brauer, William Taylor Laimaka Cox, and Patricia G. Devine, “How many reviewers are required to obtain reliable evaluations of NIH R01 grant proposals?,” Preprint, Center for Open Science April 2019. doi.org/10.31234\%2Fosf.io\%2F483zj
- Goodman, Steven N., “Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine,” Annals of Internal Medicine, 1994, 121 (1), 11. doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003
- Hadavand, Aboozar, Daniel Hamermesh, and Wesley Wilson, “Is Scholarly Refereeing Productive (at the Margin)?,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 26614, 2020. doi.org/10.3386/w26614
—, —, and —, “Publishing Economics: How Slow? Why Slow? Is Slow Productive? Fixing Slow?,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 29147, 2021. doi.org/10.3386/w29147 - Houry, Debra, Steven Green, and Michael Callaham, “Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial,” BMC Medical Education, 2012, 12 (1). doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-83
- Khoo, Shaun, “There is little evidence to suggest peer reviewer training programmes improve the quality of reviews,” Impact of Social Sciences Blog, 2018. blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/05/23/there-is-little-evidence-to-suggest-peer-reviewer-training-programmes-improve-the-quality-of-reviews/
- Laband, David N., “Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1990, 105 (2), 341. doi.org/10.2307/2937790
- Mavrogenis, Andreas, Quaile Andrew, and Marius Scarlat, “The good, the bad and the rude peer-review,” International Orthopaedics, 2020, 44. doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1
- McDowell, Gary S, John D Knutsen, June M Graham, Sarah K Oelker, and Rebeccah S Lijek, “Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts,” eLife, 2019, 8. doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48425.001
- Milkman, Katherine L., Modupe Akinola, and Dolly Chugh, “What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations.,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 2015, 100 (6), 1678–1712. doi.org/10.1037/apl0000022
- Silbiger, Nyssa and Amber Stubler, “Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM,” PeerJ, 2019, 7. doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8247
- Thompson, Gary D., Satheesh V. Aradhyula, George Frisvold, and Russell Tronstad, “Does Paying Referees Expedite Reviews? Results of a Natural Experiment,” Southern Economic Journal, 2010, 76 (3), 678–692. doi.org/10.4284/sej.2010.76.3.678
- Welch, Ivo, “Referee Recommendations,” The Review of Financial Studies, 2014, 27 (9), 2773–2804. doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhu029
- Wu, Alice, “Gender Bias in Rumors among Professionals: An Identity-Based Interpretation,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 10 2019, 102, 1–40. doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00877
3.4 REVIEWING PROCESS AND DECISION TIMES
- Abrams, Eliot, Jonathan Libgober, and John A List, “Research Registries: Facts, Myths, and Possible Improvements,” Working Paper 27250, National Bureau of Economic Research May 2020. doi.org/10.3386/w27250
- Azar, Ofer H., “The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?,” Southern Economic Journal, 2005, 72 (2), 482. doi.org/10.2307/20062123
—, “The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?,” The American Economist, 2006, 50 (1), 37–50. doi.org/10.1177/056943450605000103 - Berquist, Thomas H., “Reviewer Assistance: How Important Is the Invitation Letter?,” American Journal of Roentgenology, 2014, 203 (3), 467–467. doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13358
- Berk, Jonathan and Campbell Harvey and David Hirshleifer, “How to Write an Effective Referee Report and Improve the Scientific Review Process,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2017, 31, 231–244. doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.1.231
- Card, David and Stefano DellaVigna, “Nine Facts About Top Journals in Economics,” Journal of Economic Literature, 2013, 51. doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.1.144
—, —, and Patricia Funk, and Nagore Iriberri, “Are Referees and Editors in Economics Gender Neutral?,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2020, 135 (1), 269–327. doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz035 - Cherkashin, Ivan, Svetlana Demidova, Susumu Imai, and Kala Krishna, “The Inside Scoop: Acceptance and Rejection at the Journal of International Economics,” Journal of International Economics, 2008, 77, 120–132. doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2008.10.002
- Chetty, Raj, Emmanuel Saez, and Laszlo Sandor, “What Policies Increase Prosocial Behavior? An Experiment with Referees at the Journal of Public Economics,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2014, 28 (3), 169–88. doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.3.169
- Clain, Suzanne and Karen Leppel, “Patterns in Economics Journal Acceptances and Rejections,” The American Economist, 2017, 63 (1), 94–109. doi.org/10.1177/0569434517732542
- Cotton, Christopher, “Submission Fees and Response Times in Academic Publishing,” American Economic Review, 2013, 103, 501–509. doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.1.501
- Ellison, Glenn, “Evolving standards for academic publishing: A q-r theory,” Journal of Political Economy, 2002, 110, 994–1034. doi.org/10.1086/341871
—, “The slowdown of the economics publishing process,” Journal of Political Economy, 2002, 110, 947–993. doi.org/10.1086/341868 - Freeman, Craig, “Do Economic Journals Obey Economic Prescriptions?,” Review of Industrial Organization, 2000, 17, 371–384. www.jstor.org/stable/41798965
- Gneezy, Uri and Aldo Rustichini, “A Fine is a Price,” The Journal of Legal Studies, 2000, 29 (1), 1–17. doi.org/10.1086/468061
- Goldstein, Itay, Stefan Nagel, and Toni Whited, “ Joint Statement by the Editors of the JF, RFS, and the Incoming Editor of the JFE Concerning Referee Confidentiality,” 2021. www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-financial-economics/announcements/joint-statement-by-the-editors-of-the-jf-rfs-and-the-incomin
- Hadavand, Aboozar, Daniel Hamermesh, and Wesley Wilson, “Publishing Economics: How Slow? Why Slow? Is Slow Productive? Fixing Slow?,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 29147, 2021. doi.org/10.3386/w29147
- Hauser, Marc and Ernst Fehr, “An Incentive Solution to the Peer Review Problem,” PLoS biology, 2007, 5 (4), e107. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050107
- Huisman, Janine and Jeroen Smits, “Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective,” Scientometrics, 2017, 113, 633–650. doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5
- Johannesson, Magnus and Carl Mellström, “Crowding Out in Blood Donation: Was Titmuss Right?,” Journal of the European Economic Association, 2008, 6, 845–863. doi.org/10.1162/JEEA.2008.6.4.845
- Kube, Sebastian, Michel André Maréchal, and Clemens Puppe, “The Currency of Reciprocity: Gift Exchange in the Workplace,” American Economic Review, 2012, 102 (4), 1644–1662. doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.4.1644
- Mahmud, Tamim, B Hossain, and Dilshad Ara, “Automatic Reviewers Assignment to a Research Paper Based on Allied References and Publications Weight,” in “2018 4th International Conference on Computing Communication and Automation (ICCCA),” 2018, pp. 1–5. doi.org/10.1109/CCAA.2018.8777730
- Nagel, Stefan, “Report of the Editor of the "Journal of Finance" for the Year 2016,” The Journal of Finance, 2017, 72 (4), 1859–1874. afajof.org/wp-content/uploads/files/editors-reports/nagel-2016-the_journal_of_fi.pdf
- Ofosu, George K. and Daniel N. Posner, “Pre-Analysis Plans: An Early Stocktaking,” Perspectives on Politics, 2021, p. 1–17. doi.org/10.1017/S1537592721000931
- Olken, Benjamin A., “Promises and Perils of Pre-Analysis Plans,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2015, 29 (3), 61–80. doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.61
- Schwert, G. William, “The remarkable growth in financial economics, 1974–2020,” Journal of Financial Economics, 2021, 140 (3), 1008–1046. doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.03.010
- Squazzoni, Flaminio, Giangiacomo Bravo, and Karoly Takacs, “Does Incentive Provision Increase the Quality of Peer Review? An Experimental Study,” Research Policy, 2013, 42, 287–294. doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.014
- Vilhuber, Lars, “Report by the AEA Data Editor,” AEA Papers and Proceedings, 2019, 109, 718–729. doi.org/10.1257/pandp.109.718
- Welch, Ivo, “Referee Recommendations,” The Review of Financial Studies, 2014, 27 (9), 2773–2804. doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhu029
- Zaharie, Monica Aniela and Marco Seeber, “Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment,” Scientometrics, 2018, 117 (3), 1587–1609. doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2912-6
- Zheng, Yuqing and Harry Kaiser, “Submission demand in core economics journals: A panel study,” Economic Inquiry, 2015, 54. doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12277
3.5 INNOVATIONS IN PEER REVIEW
- Abramo, Giovanni, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, and Emanuela Reale, “Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?,” Scientometrics, 2019, 121 (1), 537–554. doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03184-y
- Andre, Peter and Armin Falk, “What’s Worth Knowing? Economists’ Opinions about Economics,” IZA Discussion Paper No. 14527, 2021. ssrn.com/abstract=3886832
- Benos, Dale J., Edlira Bashari, Jose M. Chaves, Amit Gaggar, Niren Kapoor, Martin LaFrance, Robert Mans, David Mayhew, Sara McGowan, Abigail Polter, and et al., “The ups and downs of peer review,” Advances in Physiology Education, 2007, 31 (2), 145–152. doi.org/10.1152/advan.00104.2006
- Bolboacă, Sorana D., Diana-Victoria Buhai, Maria Aluas, , and Adriana E. Bulboacă, “Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method,” PLOS ONE, 2019, 14 (6), 1–14. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217918
- Bravo, Giangiacomo, Francisco Grimaldo, Emilia López-Iñesta, Bahar Mehmani, and Flaminio Squazzoni, “The effect of publishing peer review reports on Referee behavior in five scholarly journals,” Nature Communications, 2019, 10 (1). doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2
- Dreber, Anna, Thomas Pfeiffer, Johan Almenberg, Siri Isaksson, Brad Wilson, Yiling Chen, Brian A. Nosek, and Magnus Johannesson, “Using prediction markets to estimate the reproducibility of scientific research,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2015, 112 (50), 15343–15347. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516179112
- Coles, Peter, John Cawley, Phillip B. Levine, Muriel Niederle, Alvin E. Roth, and John J. Siegfried, “The Job Market for New Economists: A Market Design Perspective,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, December 2010, 24 (4), 187–206. doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.4.187
- Ellison, Glenn, “Is peer review in decline?,” Economic Inquiry, 2010, 49 (3), 635–657. doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2010.00261.x
- Forscher, Patrick S., Markus Brauer, William Taylor Laimaka Cox, and Patricia G. Devine, “How many reviewers are required to obtain reliable evaluations of NIH R01 grant proposals?,” Preprint, Center for Open Science April 2019. doi.org/10.31234\%2Fosf.io\%2F483zj
- Gross, Kevin and Carl T. Bergstrom, “Why ex post peer review encourages high-risk research while ex ante review discourages it,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021, 118 (51). doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111615118
- Heckman, James J. and Sidharth Moktan, “Publishing and Promotion in Economics: The Tyranny of the Top Five,” Journal of Economic Literature, 2020, 58 (2), 419–470. doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191574
- Lemon, Kaelyn, Erika Mann, and Anna Simonin, “Multidisciplinary Peer Review at PLOS ONE – improving the quality of peer review for interdisciplinary research,” EveryONE, 2019. everyone.plos.org/2019/09/16/multidisciplinary-peer-review-at-plos-one-improving-the-quality-of-peer-review-for-interdisciplinary-research/
- Özler, Berk, “Working Papers are NOT Working.,” World Bank Blogs, 2011. blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/working-papers-are-not-working
- Maniadis, Zacharias and Fabio Tufano, “The Research Reproducibility Crisis and Economics of Science,” The Economic Journal, 2017, 127 (605), F200–F208. doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12526
- Nosek, Brian A., Tom E. Hardwicke, Hannah Moshontz, Aurélien Allard, Katherine S. Corker, Anna Dreber, Fiona Fidler, Joe Hilgard, Melissa Kline Struhl, Michèle B. Nuijten, Julia M. Rohrer, Felipe Romero, Anne M. Scheel, Laura D. Scherer, Felix D. Schönbrodt, and Simine Vazire, “Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science,” Annual Review of Psychology, 2022, 73 (1), 719–748. PMID: 34665669. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157
- Porter, Harry, “Community comments continued: An update on the preprint commenting pilot at PLOS, ”The Official PLOS Blog, 2020. theplosblog.plos.org/2020/10/community-comments-continued-an-update-on-the-preprint-commenting-pilot-at-plos/
- Prufer, J. and D. Zetland, “An Auction Market for Journal Articles,” Public Choice, 02 2007, 145. doi.org/10.1007/s11127-009-9571-3
- Reimers, Imke and Joel Waldfogel, “Digitization and Pre-purchase Information: The Causal and Welfare Impacts of Reviews and Crowd Ratings,” American Economic Review, 2021, 111 (6), 1944–71. doi.org/10.1257/aer.20200153
- van Rooyen, S., T. Delamothe, and S. J. Evans, “Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial,” BMJ, 2010, 341 (nov16 2), c5729–c5729. doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729
- Tennant, Jonathan, Jonathan Dugan, Daniel Graziotin, Damien Jacques, Francois Waldner, Daniel Mietchen, Yehia Elkhatib, Lauren Collister, Christina Pikas, Tom Crick, Paola Masuzzo, Anthony Caravaggi, Devin Berg, Kyle Niemeyer, Tony Ross-Hellauer, Sara Mannheimer, Lillian Rigling, Daniel S. Katz, Bastian Tzovaras, and Julien Colomb, “A multi- disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review,” F1000Research, 11 2017, 6, 1151. doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
- Welch, Ivo, “Referee Recommendations,” The Review of Financial Studies, 2014, 27 (9), 2773–2804. doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhu029
- Wu, Alice, “Gender Bias in Rumors among Professionals: An Identity-Based Interpretation,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 10 2019, 102, 1–40. doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00877
4. TAKING A STEP BACK... BUT ALSO MOVING FORWARD
- Akerlof, George A., “Sins of Omission and the Practice of Economics,” Journal of Economic Literature, 2020, 58 (2), 405–418. doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191573
- Andre, Peter and Armin Falk, “What’s Worth Knowing? Economists’ Opinions about Economics,” IZA Discussion Paper No. 14527, 2021. ssrn.com/abstract=3886832
- Atal, Vidya, “Do journals accept too many papers?,” Economics Letters, 2010, 107 (2), 229–232. doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2010.01.032
- Berk, Jonathan and Campbell Harvey and David Hirshleifer, “How to Write an Effective Referee Report and Improve the Scientific Review Process,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2017, 31, 231–244. doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.1.231
- Card, David and Stefano DellaVigna, “Nine Facts About Top Journals in Economics,” Journal of Economic Literature, 2013, 51. doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.1.144
- Chu, Johan S. G. and James A. Evans, “Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021, 118 (41). doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021636118
- Gross, Kevin and Carl T. Bergstrom, “Why ex post peer review encourages high-risk research while ex ante review discourages it,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021, 118 (51). doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111615118
- Heckman, James J. and Sidharth Moktan, “Publishing and Promotion in Economics: The Tyranny of the Top Five,” Journal of Economic Literature, 2020, 58 (2), 419–470. doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191574
- Powdthavee, Nattavudh, Yohanes E. Riyanto, and Jack L. Knetsch, “Lower-rated publications do lower academics’ judgments of publication lists: Evidence from a survey experiment of economists,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 2018, 66, 33–44. doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.04.003
- Redden, Elizabeth, “Fast pace of scientific publishing on Covid comes with problems,” Inside Higher Ed, 2020. www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/08/fast-pace-scientific-publishing-covid-comes-problems
- Schwert, G. William, “The remarkable growth in financial economics, 1974–2020,” Journal of Financial Economics, 2021, 140 (3), 1008–1046. doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.03.010