Public Choice

, Volume 145, Issue 3–4, pp 379–403 | Cite as

An auction market for journal articles

Open Access
Article

Abstract

We recommend that an auction market replace the current system for submitting academic papers and show a strict Pareto-improvement in equilibrium. Besides the benefit of speed, this mechanism increases the average quality of articles and journals and rewards editors and referees for their effort. The “academic dollar” proceeds from papers sold at auction go to authors, editors and referees of cited articles. This nonpecuniary income indicates the academic impact of an article—facilitating decisions on tenure and promotion. This auction market does not require more work of editors.

Academic journals Academic productivity Market design 

JEL Classification

A11 D02 D44 

References

  1. Armstrong, J. S. (1997). Peer review for journals: evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 63–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: evidence and proposals. Journal of Business Research, 56, 69–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benoît, J.-P., & Krishna, V. (2001). Multiple object auctions with budget constrained bidders. Review of Economic Studies, 68(1), 155–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergstrom, C. T., & Bergstrom, T. C. (2001). The economics of scholarly journal publishing. Working Paper. http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/publishing/intro.html.
  5. Bergstrom, T. C. (2001). Free labor for costly journals? Journal of Economic Perspectives, Fall: 183–198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergstrom, T. C., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2004). Will open access compete away a monopoly profits in journal publishing? Working Paper, 2 May. http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/publishing/BergstromAndBergstrom04b.pdf.
  7. Besley, T., & Ghatak, M. (2005). Competition and incentives with motivated agents. American Economic Review, 95(3), 613–636. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blois, K. (2000). Oxford textbook of marketing. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  9. Che, Y.-K., & Gale, I. (1998). Standard auctions with financially constrained bidders. Review of Economic Studies, 65(1), 1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chow, C. W., Haddad, K., Singh, G., & Wu, A. (2006). How well can publication of an article in a top accounting journal be used as a proxy for its contribution? SSRN Working Paper 921297. Google Scholar
  11. Colander, D., & Plum, T. (2004). Efficiency, journal publishing and scholarly research—a discussion paper. Middlebury College conference on economic issues—efficient transmission of scholarly research. Google Scholar
  12. Dunleavy, P. (2003). Authoring a Ph.D.: how to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral thesis or dissertation. New York: Palgrave. Google Scholar
  13. Ellison, G. (2002a). Evolving standards for academic publishing: a qr theory. Journal of Political Economy, 110(5), 994–1034. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellison, G. (2002b). The slowdown of the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy, 110(5), 947–993. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellison, G. (2007). NBER Working Paper 13272. Google Scholar
  16. Frey, B. S. (2003). Publishing as prostitution? Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success. Public Choice, 116, 205–223. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gans, J. S., & Shepherd, G. B. (1994). How are the mighty fallen: rejected classic articles by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 165–79. Google Scholar
  18. Garcia-Berthou, E., & Alcaraz, C. (2004). Incongruence between test statistics and p values in medical papers. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 4(1), 13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garfield, E. (1994). The impact factor. Current Contents, 20 Jun. Google Scholar
  20. Hagel, J., & Brown, J. S. (2005). Moving from push to pull—emerging models for mobilizing resources. Working paper. http://www.johnhagel.com/paper_pushpull.pdf.
  21. Hamermesh, D. S. (1994). Facts and myths about refereeing. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 153–64. Google Scholar
  22. Havrilesky, T. M. (1975). Towards a more competitive market for scholarly output. In Frontiers of economics (pp. 61–69). Blacksburg: University Publications. Google Scholar
  23. Judge, T. A., Colbert, A., Cable, D. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2007). What causes a management article to be cited—article, author, or journal? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 491–506. Google Scholar
  24. Kalaitzidakis, P., Stengos, T., & Mamuneas, T. P. (2003). Rankings of academic journals and institutions in economics. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(6), 1346–1366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klein, D. B., & Chiang, E. (2004). The Social Science Citation Index: a black box—with an ideological bias? Econ Journal Watch, 1(1). Google Scholar
  26. Mailath, G., & Samuelson, L. (2006). Repeated games and reputations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Milgrom, P. R. (1981). Rational expectations, information acquisition, and competitive bidding. Econometrica, 49(4), 921–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oster, S. (1980). The optimal order for submitting manuscripts. American Economic Review, 70(3), 444–48. Google Scholar
  29. Oswald, A. J. (2006). Prestige labels. Royal Economic Society Newsletter, 135. Google Scholar
  30. Oswald, A. J. (2007). An examination of the reliability of prestigious scholarly journals: evidence and implications for decision-makers. Economica, 74(293), 21–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peters, C. B. (1976). Multiple submissions: why not? American Sociologist, 11, 165–79. Google Scholar
  32. Plasmeijer, H. W. (2002). Pricing the serials library: in defense of a market economy. Journal of Economic Methodology, 9(3), 337–357. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pressman, S. (1994). Simultaneous multiple journal submissions: the case against. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 53(3), 316–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pressman, S. (2005). Publishing and academic issues. Panel Discussion at AFEE Workshop, Colorado State University, 13 Aug. Google Scholar
  35. Roth, A. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2002). Last-minute bidding and the rules for ending second-price auctions: evidence from eBay and Amazon auctions on the Internet. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1093–1103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Seidl, C., Schmidt, C., & Grösche, P. (2005). The performance of peer review and a beauty contest of referee processes of economic journals. Estudios de Economía Applicada, 23(3), 505–551. Google Scholar
  37. Starbuck, W. H. (2003). Turning lemons into lemonade. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), 344–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16(2), 180–200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Szenberg, M. (1994). Disseminating scholarly output: the case for eliminating the exclusivity of journal submissions. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 53(3), 303–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tsang, E. W. K., & Frey, B. (2006). The as-is journal review process: let authors own their ideas. Academy of Management Learning and Education. Google Scholar
  41. Tullock, G. (1967). The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Western Economic Journal, 5(3), 224–232. Google Scholar
  42. Tullock, G. (2005/1966). The organization of inquiry. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Google Scholar
  43. Varian, H. R. (1997). The AEA’s electronic publishing plans: a progress report. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(3), 95–104. Google Scholar
  44. Zamiska, N. (2006). Journal Nature opens peer review process to comments online. Wall Street Journal, 14, Sep:B1. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, CentER & TILECTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural & Resource EconomicsUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations