The Ivory Tower's Gatekeepers: A Reckoning in Economics Publishing

In the hallowed halls of academia, where the pursuit of knowledge is paramount, a quiet storm is brewing within economics. The profession, long revered for its rigorous methodologies and influential insights, is now grappling with a profound self-examination of its practices in publishing and measuring success. This introspection, fueled by concerns about bias, inefficiency, and the potential misdirection of research efforts, prompts a reevaluation of the foundations upon which economists build their careers and reputations.

At the heart of this debate lies the traditional reliance on a select group of prestigious journals, often referred to as the "Top Five," as the arbiters of scholarly excellence. Publication in these esteemed outlets has long been the gold standard for career advancement, shaping the trajectory of countless economists. However, a growing chorus of voices is questioning the wisdom of this approach, arguing that it fosters a monolithic and exclusionary culture that stifles diversity and innovation.

The concerns raised are not merely theoretical but are grounded in empirical evidence. Studies have revealed a stark heterogeneity in citation patterns across journals, suggesting that the "Top Five" may not be the sole repositories of impactful research. The dominance of these journals has also been linked to a significant slowdown in publication rates, hindering the career progression of young economists and potentially discouraging promising talent from entering the field. Moreover, the influence of social ties and connections in the publication process has raised questions about potential biases and the fairness of the current system.

The COVID-19 pandemic has further exposed the vulnerabilities of the traditional publishing model. The urgency of the crisis has highlighted the need for more efficient and inclusive mechanisms for disseminating research findings. While economists have been actively studying the pandemic's economic and social implications, the pandemic has also exacerbated existing inequalities in research productivity, with female and mid-career economists disproportionately affected.

In response to these challenges, the economics profession is exploring alternative approaches to evaluating research. Broader journal rankings, citation-based metrics adjusted for field-specific factors, and greater emphasis on departmental peer review are being considered as potential solutions. Additionally, there is a growing recognition of the need to address systemic biases that hinder the career advancement of women and minorities in economics.

The ongoing debate about publishing and measuring success in economics is not merely an academic exercise; it has far-reaching implications for the discipline's future. A more equitable, efficient, and inclusive system is essential to ensure that economic research remains relevant, impactful, and representative of the diverse perspectives within the field. The path forward may be uncertain, but the willingness to engage in this critical self-examination is a testament to the resilience and adaptability of the economics profession. As economists grapple with these complex issues, they can reshape their discipline for the better, ensuring that it remains a vibrant and influential force in the world of ideas.

Reference

Galiani, S and U Panizza (eds) (2020). 'Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics', CEPR Press, Paris & London. https://cepr.org/publications/books-and-reports/publishing-and-measuring-success-economics