on 19 Aug 2002 "Manfredi M.A. La Manna" <mlm_at_elsss.org.uk> wrote:
> In my view, paying referees for the prompt return of full reports is an
> essential part of a successful entry strategy in a market with enormous
> barriers to entry. Especially in economics where the publishing process
> is extremely protracted (for an excellent paper on this topic, see
> Glenn Ellison's " The slowdown of the economics publishing process",
> http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/gellison/files/jrnem.pdf).
Ellison's data is interesting, but he fails to
take into account some fundamental economic facts.
For example, he repeated claims no change in the
economics profession since 1970. Actually it has
grown substantially. EconoLit has recorded more
than three times growth of annual published
journal articles since 1970. Lotka's law suggests
there must be many more authors today. In this
respect, economics is not different from other
fields.
Robert K Merton noted declines in "the relative
amount of space available for publication." In
1971 he pointed out that journal space in the
social sciences was not increasing beyond the
increase in numbers of scholars, in contrast to
the situation in physics. In economics, the number
of pages available in top journals has probably
increased less than the increase in potential
authors. This should be easy to verify. In fields
like physics, where rejection rates are low, he
noted that editors appear to be willing to risk
errors and to "publish papers that do not measure
up rather than to overlook work that may turn out
to be original and significant."
We also know that all academic serials have
suffered huge cancellations since 1970, thanks to
the inequity between library spending and the growth
of R&D spending that drives authorship and
publication (as noted by British economist David J
Brown). Many journals outside of the physical and
bio sciences constricted their growth in order to
avoid increasing their prices. They stimulated the
creation of new niche journals that fostered the
twigging of new specialties. In short, the top
economics journals must become more selective and
demanding than they were in the 1960s, when every
major institution had many subscriptions. Like a
reduction in a pipe, financial constriction
creates pressure on the input side. In mathematics,
for comparison, the backlogs of accepted papers
were so outrageous that the code of ethics adopted
by the math society declared that editors must
inform authors of delays.
Moreover, Merton also explained why researchers
have traditionally participated in the referee
process for free. He observed the evaluation
process in some detail. Ellison's article would
have benefited from reference to Merton's work.
In a paper first published in in 1971, Merton
pointed out that economics has a much higher rate
of rejection than physical and biological sciences
and a lower rate than the humanities. He said,
"for the journals in the humanities and social
sciences, it is the potentially acceptable
paper which is problematic." [Institutionalized
patterns of evaluation in science, reprinted in
THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE. U Chicago Press]
From all of this I can see why some social science
publishers are able to demand submission fees and
must pay referees. The IBM journal mentioned by
Andy Odlyzko is an exceptional case. It has always
been, of course, a serious publicity element. Its
production manager in the 1960s was a friend of mine.
Its budget never depended on subscription income. As
such, no expense would be spared.
Best wishes,
Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532_at_compuserve.com>
.
Received on Tue Aug 20 2002 - 00:30:18 BST