Alex, No on law journals. Though, some of the writing is better and certainly more interesting that in economics!
But still I would argue that the JLE under Coase was "better" than it is today and they "paid" for articles and commissioned articles. Hayek's Use of Knowledge in Society was a paid for article by the AER (Machlup was the editor at the time) and it was a pay back for an article that Machlup had done to fill in a gap in Economica (Hayek's journal). Frank Knight was commissioned to write his articles. Read the book on Nash -- what was his experience in publishing his first paper on the Nash equilibrium? It was accepted and then he worked closely with the editors and referees to make it better in terms of presentation, etc. The system is different from what exists today. Note what Frey's solution is --- give residual claimancy to the editor ---- think about journals where the editor is assumed to be the intellectual thrust behind the journal (an activist editor) --- I think most of the great insights in economics come from this sort of arrangement, rather than arrangments where the editor is less active. However, the system is against active editors ---- Clower had to leave being editor of the AER after a short stint. Editors matter and are the solution (that is Frey's point), but we need to change certain practices and expectations for that to happen. Now to be insulting for the sake of argument --- if you haven't been rejected you aren't trying and if you haven't been jerked around by referees you aren't working on bold enough ideas. That, of course, is not to say that _I_ try hard and have only bold ideas ---- I certainly don't think that. But come on --- Frey makes some great points about the absurdity of current situation and he finds the source in a certain organizational arrangement. I certainly wouldn't argue that the academic market for ideas is organized efficiently, and I wouldn't contend that I am the bold entrepreneur that will exploit that inefficiency for intellectual profit. I wish I was --- someone will be and economics will someday be turned on its head again and when it happens most of us will sit there and think "God, I should have thought of that." But the bottom line problem with this entrepreneurial hope in the market for academic economics is that we don't have institutions that serve the functions analogous to property, prices and profit and loss. As a result, academic economics is organized more along the lines of a Soviet type bureaucracy. Profit opportunities go undiscovered and more damaging still superfolous discoveries are persued with a passion by the next generation of academic apparatchiks. This, I believe, is why the only way to reform is to pursue a radical institutional change and in the meantime to keep the pressure on -- do economics with attitude --- and don't let the bastards breathe (as my basketball coaches used to say). Pete P.S.: Robin, I think the statement that entry is cheap is a little dubious. We go through an entire process of being cultured to the ways of the profession called graduate school and especially the process of writing a dissertation and getting a job. Then you get more of that as an assistant professor -- especially if you are at a top 20 research university. You learn to value certain journals and types of arguments and dismiss other types of arguments and evidence as "not serious". If you resist you are thrown out, if you try to assimilate and fail you are thrown out. I think for all who have a view of the profession as cheap entry and that the best argument wins should work as hard as they can to get a grant to spend a year or more in a top 20 department --- I spent 8 years in two of them (7 at NYU, 1 at Stanford) --- the process is not cheap, nor easy, nor kind. I loved being in those environments, still wish I was in some fundamental sense. But, it was not cheap, nor easy, nor kind. Scholarship should never be cheap, nor easy, nor kind --- words and ideas should hurt in my opinion --- but I think it is at best a noble lie to believe that the truth wins out in academics ---- the costs are too low for being wrong, and the benefits for being this years fad are too high. Careerism, fadism, cults of personality, and generally a waste of intellectual resources describe academic life, not truth seeking and original thinking. This is what is so bothersome to Frey --- he wants an institutional solution that rewards originality and boldness and raises the costs to careerism and conformity. I would have thought you'd be more sympathetic. Peter J. Boettke, Deputy Director James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy Department of Economics, MSN 3G4 George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030 PHONE: 703-993-1149 FAX: 703-993-1133 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOMEPAGE: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/pboettke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Tabarrok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 6:35 PM Subject: Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper > I said "I happen to think that much of what the profession demands is > unnecessary, > boring, absurd, and counter-productive but what has this to do with the > way journals are refereed?" > > Pete responded "Well, that is the question isn't it?" > > Yes, it is the question that Frey doesn't answer. > > Pete writes "How about lack of accountability in double-blind systems? > How about intellectual fadism within a profession? We have a problem of > conspicous production in academics." > > But where is the argument that connects lack of accountability in > double-blind systems to any of the substantive complaints we (or Frey) > have about the industry? Do you really think that single or no-blind > would lead to more relevant economics? If anything, double-blind does > something to break the cartel although I don't think that it changes > content much at all (i.e. it gives lesser-known people a better shot at > the big journals but they still have to do the sort of work the > profession likes). > > Furthering Robin's comments recall that economists do not have an > unusual method of editing journals - practically all journals in all > countries use a similar system so its hard to argue that the system is > dominated. About the only profession that is different is law - would > anyone care to make an argument that student edited journals are the way > to go???!!!!! > > > Alex > > > -- > Dr. Alexander Tabarrok > Vice President and Director of Research > The Independent Institute > 100 Swan Way > Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 > Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
