Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 116, Issue 1–2, pp 205–223 | Cite as

Publishing as Prostitution? – Choosing Between One's Own Ideas and Academic Success

  • Bruno S. Frey
Article

Abstract

Survival in academia depends on publications in refereedjournals. Authors only get their papers accepted if theyintellectually prostitute themselves by slavishly followingthe demands made by anonymous referees who have no propertyrights to the journals they advise. Intellectual prostitutionis neither beneficial to suppliers nor consumers. But it isavoidable. The editor (with property rights to the journal)should make the basic decision of whether a paper is worthpublishing or not. The referees should only offer suggestionsfor improvement. The author may disregard this advice. Thisreduces intellectual prostitution and produces more originalpublications.

Keywords

Public Finance Academic Success Basic Decision 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akerlof, G.A. and Dickens, W.T. (1982). The economic consequences of cognitive dissonance. American Economic Review 72: 307–319.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, G.S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bergstrom, T.C. (2001). Free labour for costly journals? Journal of Economic Perspectives 15: 183–198.Google Scholar
  4. Blank, R.M. (1991). The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from the American Economic Review. American Economic Review 5: 1041–1068.Google Scholar
  5. Blaug, M. (1999). Who's who in economics (3rd Edn), Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  6. Blaug, M. (2002). Ugly currents in modern economics. In: Maki U. (Ed.), Fact and fiction in economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J.M. (2000). Saving the soul of classical economics. Wall Street Journal, January 1st.Google Scholar
  8. Bullough, V.L. and Bullough, B. (1987). Women and prostitution: A social history. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  9. Cassidy, J. (1996). The decline of economics. New Yorker 2: 50–60.Google Scholar
  10. Cicchetti, D.V. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscripts and grant submissions: A cross disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14: 119–186.Google Scholar
  11. Coase, R.H. (1994). Essays on economics and economists. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Coe, R.K. and Weinstock, I. (1967). Editorial policies of the major economics journals. Quarterly Review of Economics and Business 7: 37–43.Google Scholar
  13. Coupé, T. (2000). Revealed performances. Worldwide rankings of economists and economic departments. Working Paper, ECA RES, Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  14. Diamond, A. (1986). The life-cycle research productivity of mathematicians and scientists. Journal of Gerontology 41: 520–525.Google Scholar
  15. Diamond, A. (1989). The core journals in economics. Current Contents 1: 4–11.Google Scholar
  16. Dusansky, R. and Vernon, C.J. (1998). Rankings of U.S. economics departments. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12: 157–170.Google Scholar
  17. Economist, The (1997). The puzzling failure of economics. The Economist, August 23rd: 13.Google Scholar
  18. Economist, The (2000). Economics forum: The future of economics. The Economist, March 4th: 90.Google Scholar
  19. Edlund, L. and Korn, E. (2002). A theory of prostitution. Journal of Political Economy 110: 181–214.Google Scholar
  20. Ellison, G. (2000). The slowdown of the economics publishing process. NBERWorking Paper No. W 7804, July.Google Scholar
  21. Engers, M. and Gans, J.S. (1998). Why referees are not paid (enough). American Economic Review 88: 1341–1350.Google Scholar
  22. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Frank, R. (1987). If homo economicus could choose his own utility function, would he want one with a conscience? American Economic Review 77: 593–604.Google Scholar
  24. Frey, B.S. (1997). Not just for the money. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA: Elgar.Google Scholar
  25. Frey, B.S. (1999). Economics as a science of human behaviour. 2nd rev. and extended ed., Boston and Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. Frey, B.S. (2000). Arts and economics: Analysis and cultural policy. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Frey, B.S. (2002). Do economists affect policy outcomes? Working Paper Series, Institute for Empirical Research, University of Zürich.Google Scholar
  28. Frey, B.S. and Eichenberger, R. (2000). The ranking of economists and management scientists in Europe. A quantitative analysis. Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines 10: 575–581.Google Scholar
  29. Frey, B.S. and Osterloh, M. (Eds.) (2002). Successful management by motivation. Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Gans, J. (2000). Publishing economics: Analyses of the academic journal market in economics.Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA, USA: Elgar.Google Scholar
  31. Gans, J.S. and Shepherd, G.B. (1994). How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 165–180.Google Scholar
  32. Gerrity, D.M. and McKenzie, R.B. (1978). The ranking of southern economics departments: New criterion and further evidence. Southern Economic Journal 11: 161–166.Google Scholar
  33. Graves, P.E., Marchand, J.R. and Thompson, R. (1982). Economics departmental rankings: Research incentives, constraints, and efficiency. American Economic Review 72: 1131–1141.Google Scholar
  34. Hamermesh, D.S. (1994). Facts and myths about refereeing. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 153–164.Google Scholar
  35. Hamermesh, D.S., Johnson, G.E. and Weisbrod, B.A. (1982). Scholarship, citations and salaries: Economic rewards in economics. Southern Economic Journal 49: 472–481.Google Scholar
  36. Hansen, W.L., Weisbrod, B.A. and Strauss, R.P. (1978). Modeling the earnings and research productivity of academic economists. Journal of Political Economy 86: 729–741.Google Scholar
  37. Kirchgässner, G. (1992). Towards a theory of low-cost decisions. European Journal of Political Economy 8: 305–320.Google Scholar
  38. Laband, D.N. (1985). Publishing favoritism: A critique of department rankings based on quantitative publishing performance. Southern Economic Journal 52: 510–515.Google Scholar
  39. Laband, D.N., McCormick, R.E. and Maloney, M.T. (1990). The review process in economics: Some empirical findings. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  40. Laband, D.N. (1990). Is there value-added from the review process in economics?: Preliminary evidence from authors. Quarterly Journal of Economics 2: 341–352.Google Scholar
  41. Leijorihufvud, A.(1973). Life among the econ. Western Economic Journal 11: 327–337.Google Scholar
  42. Leontief, W. (1971). Theoretical assumptions and nonobserved facts. American Economic Journal 61: 1–7.Google Scholar
  43. Middleton, R. (1998). Charlatans or saviours? Economists and the British economy from Marshall to Meade. Northampton MA: Edward Elgar Publisher.Google Scholar
  44. Muroi, H. and Sasaki, N. (1997). Tourism and prostitution in Japan. In: Sinclair, M.T. (Ed.), Gender, work and tourism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Oster, S.M. and Hamermesh, D.S. (1998). Aging and productivity among economists. Review of Economics and Statistics 80: 154–157.Google Scholar
  46. Reder, M.W. (1999). Economics. The culture of a controversial science. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Sauer, R. (1988). Estimates of the returns to quality and co-authorship in economic academia.Journal of Political Economy 96: 855–866.Google Scholar
  48. Seidl, C., Schmidt, U. and Grösche, P. (2002). A beauty contest of referee processes of economics journals: Preliminary results. Mimeo, Department of Economics, University of Kiel.Google Scholar
  49. Siow, A. (1991). Are first impressions important in academia? Journal of Human Resources 26: 236–255.Google Scholar
  50. Summers, L.H. (2000). International financial crises: Causes, preventions and cures. American Economic Review 90: 1–16.Google Scholar
  51. Throsby, D.C. (2000). Economics and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Towse, R. (1997). Cultural economics: The arts, the heritage and the media industries. 2Vols.Cheltenham, U.K. and Lyme, U.S.: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  53. Tuckman, H.P. and Leahey, J. (1975). What is an article worth? Journal of Political Economy 83: 951–967.Google Scholar
  54. van Bergeijk, P.A.G., et al. (Eds.) (1997). Economic science and practice: The roles of academic economists and policy-makers. Cheltenham, UK, and Lyme, NH: Elgar.Google Scholar
  55. Vandermeulen, A. (1972). Manuscripts in the Maelstrom: A theory of the editorial process.Public Choice 13: 107–111.Google Scholar
  56. Yohe, G.W. (1980). Current publication lags in economics journals. Journal of Economic Literature 18: 1050–1055.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno S. Frey
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Empirical Economic ResearchUniversity of ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations