(1) The Editors and Authors of Economics Journals: A Case of Institutional Oligopoly? Geoffrey M. Hodgson and Harry Rothman, Economic Journal, 1999.

Abstract: This paper examines data on the institutional backgrounds of editors and authors of the top 30 economics journals, identified by their 1995 citation impact. It is revealed, for example, that 70.8% of the journal editors were located in the United States, and twelve U.S. universities accounted for the location of more than 38.9%. Concerning journal article authors, 65.7% were located in U.S. institutions and twelve U.S. universities accounted for 21.8%. Arguably, the degree of institutional and geographical concentration of editors and authors may be unhealthy for innovative research in economics.

(2) Diversity in Economics: An Analysis of Journal Quality Perceptions, Kostas Axarloglou and Vasilis Theoharakis, Journal of European Economic Association, December 2003, 1(6): 1402-1423.

Abstract: It is still debatable whether scientific diversity is a virtue or a disadvantage for the develop-ment of a discipline. Nonetheless, diversity among scientists with respect to their journal quality perceptions plays an important role in hiring and promotion decisions. In this article we examine the degree of diversity within economics based on the journal quality perceptions of 2,103 AEA economists worldwide. Specifically, we empirically test for factors that might explain differences in an economist’s journal quality perceptions. These factors include an economist’s geographic origin, school of thought, journal affiliation, field of specialization and research orientation. Indeed, we find that a significant degree of diversity in journal quality perceptions exists between economists that belong in different subgroups. These results might explain the frequent debates in tenure and promotion committees where journal standings are used for the evaluation of a researcher’s output.

In fact, I have several times returned the paper to the editor because I suspect I know who the authors are by their sample etc (and I happen to know these people personally). In these cases I do not feel that I should review the paper because I might be biased and would form opinions about my decision based on personal relationships rather than the quality and content of the paper. I know – this is because I am weak and cannot separate my personal life from my professional life etc – but who really can? I think it makes sense to send it back to the editor unless you really think that you are the only one in the world who can review this paper or who is THE expert in the field (sadly I am not – nor do I ever expect to be – one such expert)…

Is this true? Most of the journals in my field are only single-blind (reviewers know who the author is) rather than double-blind (both reviewers and authors are in the dark). It would seem to me that the only reason to *not* have a double-blind process is to take the name of the author into account when reviewing the paper.

While I may agree in principle that some editors are delegating too much power and decision-making to their reviewers, my understanding of this process is that part of the reason for having reviewers in the first place is to ensure a fair and essentially BLIND review process. The fact that the editor knows the identity of the author(s) presents somewhat of a problem to me because we all know that (intended or not) human beings tend to be biased – perhaps toward known names?

If we want truly blind and fair reviews then we need to give most of the power to the reviewers. It is then the job of the editor to ensure that a given paper is reviewed by the best qualified reviewers. In my view – this is where the problem lies: how do we ensure quality reviews – even from the best qualified people (who are busy and may be negatively biased toward anything out of the ordinary: read their own literature tradition)?

In my view, the role of the editor is not only to break up ties but to carefully weigh the comments of the reviewers in order to make the final decision. Reviewers make mistakes. Reviewers may be biased etc. Some arguments may be (and should be) stronger than others. For instance, in many to tier journals you will typically (at least in theory) get three reviewers, where one is a methodologist (may or may not be within your field), one is a theory person (perhaps in your field) and one is a more general type reviewer. How do you distinguish between the comments and recommendations from these three? It may be that the paper is rejected based on a poor methodology, yet the paper makes an extremely interesting theoretical contribution etc. The methods person may not see (or be willing to entertain) the possibility of revising this paper along these lines – even if it does mean a complete methodological makeover – yet if the editor believes in the novelty of the argumentation and that the methodology problems could be solved – perhaps this paper should be given at least a second chance?