An auction market for journal articles
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.
JEL ClassificationA11 D02 D44
- Bergstrom, C. T., & Bergstrom, T. C. (2001). The economics of scholarly journal publishing. Working Paper. http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/publishing/intro.html.
- 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.
- Blois, K. (2000). Oxford textbook of marketing. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Dunleavy, P. (2003). Authoring a Ph.D.: how to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral thesis or dissertation. New York: Palgrave. Google Scholar
- Ellison, G. (2007). NBER Working Paper 13272. Google Scholar
- 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
- Garfield, E. (1994). The impact factor. Current Contents, 20 Jun. Google Scholar
- 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.
- Hamermesh, D. S. (1994). Facts and myths about refereeing. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 153–64. Google Scholar
- Havrilesky, T. M. (1975). Towards a more competitive market for scholarly output. In Frontiers of economics (pp. 61–69). Blacksburg: University Publications. Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Oster, S. (1980). The optimal order for submitting manuscripts. American Economic Review, 70(3), 444–48. Google Scholar
- Oswald, A. J. (2006). Prestige labels. Royal Economic Society Newsletter, 135. Google Scholar
- Peters, C. B. (1976). Multiple submissions: why not? American Sociologist, 11, 165–79. Google Scholar
- Pressman, S. (2005). Publishing and academic issues. Panel Discussion at AFEE Workshop, Colorado State University, 13 Aug. Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Tullock, G. (1967). The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Western Economic Journal, 5(3), 224–232. Google Scholar
- Tullock, G. (2005/1966). The organization of inquiry. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Google Scholar
- Varian, H. R. (1997). The AEA’s electronic publishing plans: a progress report. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(3), 95–104. Google Scholar
- Zamiska, N. (2006). Journal Nature opens peer review process to comments online. Wall Street Journal, 14, Sep:B1. Google Scholar