Re: fantastically entertaining paper
On 6/19/02, Bryan Caplan wrote: I heartily recommend Bruno Frey's extremely fun working paper Publishing as Prostitution: Choosing Between One's Own Ideas and Academic Failure. ... http://www.iew.unizh.ch/wp/iewwp117.pdf Peter Boettke added: I completely agree with your assessment of Frey's paper. Well the paper is on an interesting topic that I'd like to see more papers on, but the paper is also an example of why we don't see more papers on this topic; people find it much harder to analyze topics where they personally have much at stake. As economic analysis, Frey's discussion is pretty weak. Here we have an industry (academic journals) where concentration is low, entry is cheap, and most firms use the same production technology (referees with veto power), even though an alternate technology (editors pick) has long been tried, and is easy to try. Frey claims that it is a market failure not to use this alternate tech, because the standard tech has agency costs, which has the effect of raising the costs to one of the inputs (authors). If this were any other industry, I'm sure Frey would be among the first to make the standard economist's response: If your preferred tech is easy, has long been tried, and has lower costs without other disadvantages, in a competitive industry why hasn't it long displaced the standard tech? I'm sure a clever person could come up with an externality or asymmetric information market failure argument, but the amazing thing is that Frey doesn't even try here. I'd say that the key stumbling block to a better theory of academic journals is identifying the real customers and their preferences. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Not such a fantastically entertaining paper
In addition to Robin's comments I found the motivating factor of Frey's paper to be weak. I take it that his main complaint is that referee's force authors to prostitute themselves by making changes the authors think are wrong. I personally have never experienced this problem and I would be surprised if many people have, although I am willing to be enlightened. To be sure, I have had papers rejected for bad reasons and sometimes I have made changes to satisfy referees that I thought were not necessary but I have never been asked to change a conclusion or to write something I thought was false. In a few cases, referees have actually helped me to improve the paper! (Yes, this does sometimes happen!). Now perhaps Frey is saying that the problem is that authors must write their papers in a certain way even in order to have any hope of getting published. Now certainly this is true - the profession demands a particulary style of paper especially in the top journals. 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? Almost nothing. 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]
Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper
Let me also add that the basic assumption of Frey's article is also wrong - the assumption that editors slavishly follow referee's. My take is that it's editors choose referees, so the editor's really do choose the articles because they choose referees and indirectly choose the outcomes. Fabio
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]
Re: fantastically entertaining paper
Robin Hanson wrote: Here we have an industry (academic journals) where concentration is low, entry is cheap, and most firms use the same production technology (referees with veto power), even though an alternate technology (editors pick) has long been tried, and is easy to try. Frey claims that it is a market failure not to use this alternate tech, because the standard tech has agency costs, which has the effect of raising the costs to one of the inputs (authors). I must have raised this issue before, but aren't you leaving out a key competitive assumption, namely profit maximization? If you have a ton of firms but their motive is not financial success, most of the standard results don't go through. You might appeal to survivorship (with randomly assigned objective functions, profit maximizers gradually take over), but if non-profits have a continual stream of subsidies that does not have to work. If this were any other industry, I'm sure Frey would be among the first to make the standard economist's response: If your preferred tech is easy, has long been tried, and has lower costs without other disadvantages, in a competitive industry why hasn't it long displaced the standard tech? I'm sure a clever person could come up with an externality or asymmetric information market failure argument, but the amazing thing is that Frey doesn't even try here. How about simple coordination failure? The AER is focally viewed as the top econ journal. If one person says the AER sucks and ignores it he mostly hurts his own prospects. A lot of people would have to coordinate on an alternative at once for this to change. I'd say that the key stumbling block to a better theory of academic journals is identifying the real customers and their preferences. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He lives in deadly terror of agreeing; 'Twould make him seem an ordinary being. Indeed, he's so in love with contradiction, He'll turn against his most profound conviction And with a furious eloquence deplore it, If only someone else is speaking for it. Moliere, *The Misanthrope*
