Journal competition and the quality of published research: Simultaneous versus sequential screening

Gehrig, Thomas; Stenbacka, Rune

doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2021.102718

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A journal may want to charge negative subscription fees to attract more readers and hence citations. However, the journal cannot control that a reader who gets the subsidy indeed reads the journal, so that negative subscription fees would lead to having many "fake" readers.7The growing theoretical literature on academic journals has focused on screening, seeMcCabe and Snyder (2005),Jeon and Rochet (2010),Wang (2018), andGehrig and Stenbacka (2021). While screening and reproducibility can both be seen as a quality variable, a crucial difference is that a high level of reproducibility imposes a cost on authors and not only on the journal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility Certification in Economics Research

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical evidence documents a relatively low level of research reproducibility in economics.In this paper, we investigate why this is the case and what can be done to move out of this low-reproducibility equilibrium. We study the supply and demand for research reproducibility, provide empirical evidence on authors' preferences for reproducibility, and estimate the cost of verifying reproducibility. We theoretically show that competition between journals to attract authors leads to a suboptimally low level of reproducibility.Leading journals with sufficient market power can set higher reproducibility standards, which is consistent with recent changes in data availability policies.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%