The current issue of the JEL actually includes several papers on market design. The one I blogged about yesterday concerns market design as an outward facing part of economics--economists help others design the markets they need. The two I'll mention today are about the design of the academic profession of Economics itself, chiefly through the design of our system of publications (which in turn determines professional rewards like tenure and prestige). Both papers argue that the norms of publishing in well-regarded journals may inhibit economists (particularly young economists) from tackling important problems in unconventional ways.
Sins of Omission and the Practice of Economics†
George A. Akerlof
Journal of Economic Literature 2020, 58(2), 405–418 https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191573
Abstract: "This paper advances the proposition that economics, as a discipline, gives rewards that favor the “hard” and disfavor the “soft.” Such bias leads economic research to ignore important topics and problems that are difficult to approach in a “hard” way— thereby resulting in “sins of omission.” This paper argues for reexamination of current institutions for publication and promotion in economics—as it also argues for greatly increased tolerance in norms for publication and promotion as one way of alleviating narrow methodological biases."
Publishing and Promotion in Economics: The Tyranny of the Top Five†
James J. Heckman and Sidharth Moktan*
Journal of Economic Literature 2020, 58(2), 419–470 https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191574
Abstract: "This paper examines the relationship between placement of publications in top five (T5) journals and receipt of tenure in academic economics departments. Analyzing the job histories of tenure-track economists hired by the top 35 US economics departments, we find that T5 publications have a powerful influence on tenure decisions and rates of transition to tenure. A survey of the perceptions of young economists supports the formal statistical analysis. Pursuit of T5 publications has become the obsession of the next generation of economists. However, the T5 screen is far from reliable. A substantial share of influential publications appear in non-T5 outlets. Reliance on the T5 to screen talent incentivizes careerism over creativity."
Sins of Omission and the Practice of Economics†
George A. Akerlof
Journal of Economic Literature 2020, 58(2), 405–418 https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191573
Abstract: "This paper advances the proposition that economics, as a discipline, gives rewards that favor the “hard” and disfavor the “soft.” Such bias leads economic research to ignore important topics and problems that are difficult to approach in a “hard” way— thereby resulting in “sins of omission.” This paper argues for reexamination of current institutions for publication and promotion in economics—as it also argues for greatly increased tolerance in norms for publication and promotion as one way of alleviating narrow methodological biases."
Publishing and Promotion in Economics: The Tyranny of the Top Five†
James J. Heckman and Sidharth Moktan*
Journal of Economic Literature 2020, 58(2), 419–470 https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191574
Abstract: "This paper examines the relationship between placement of publications in top five (T5) journals and receipt of tenure in academic economics departments. Analyzing the job histories of tenure-track economists hired by the top 35 US economics departments, we find that T5 publications have a powerful influence on tenure decisions and rates of transition to tenure. A survey of the perceptions of young economists supports the formal statistical analysis. Pursuit of T5 publications has become the obsession of the next generation of economists. However, the T5 screen is far from reliable. A substantial share of influential publications appear in non-T5 outlets. Reliance on the T5 to screen talent incentivizes careerism over creativity."