Facts and Myths about Refereeing

Bibliographic Data

ID4029744
AuthorsDaniel S Hamermesh (0000-0001-7927-2743, Edward Everett Hale Centennial Professor of Economics, University of Texas at Austin, Texas; Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts., corresponding author)
Year1994
Volume8
Issue1
Pages153-163
Publication date1994-02-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe Journal of Economic Perspectives (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0895-3309 • E-ISSN: 1944-7965
PublisherAmerican Economic Association (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1257/jep.8.1.153
OpenAlexW2000112399
LanguageEN
Citations received23
References cited6

Referees' and editors' behavior is illustrated by data from a random sample of refereeing requests by seven economics journals. Referees tend to be higher-quality (better-cited, prime-age) than authors. Except for a few superstar authors, there is no matching of authors and referees by quality. Nearly 80 percent of those asked to referee do so, with a median completion time of less than two months. Except for a few very slow referees and another few who promise but fail to accomplish the task, the slow editorial process is not due to referees' behavior. Paying referees speeds the job, mainly by speeding up those who would barely not qualify for the fee

Actuarial science · Advertising · Business · Economics · Management · Statistics · Superstar · Economic Theory and Institutions · Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies · Innovations in Educational Methods · Mathematics · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access