S3 Ep47: Publishing in economics

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: The episode examines whether economics publishing still rewards the best research or overvalues elite journals and networks. Editors Sebastian Galiani and Ugo Panizza argue that top-five journals retain outsized influence, citation counts are imperfect, publication lags harm young scholars, and connections can affect outcomes. They also discuss race disparities and how COVID-era preprints exposed limits of slow journal systems.

Main Topics: The role of journals in modern economics (Priority: 5/5): Despite working papers, blogs, and fast dissemination channels, journal publication remains crucial for certification, reputation, and career rewards in economics. Top-five journal dominance and incentives (Priority: 5/5): The conversation argues that economics overweights top-five journals in evaluating scholars, distorting incentives and potentially narrowing the kind of research produced. Citations as a measure of impact (Priority: 4/5): Citation counts are useful but imperfect: citation aging differs across fields, citations can be strategic, and overlap across journal tiers weakens the prestige signal of top journals. Publication lags and career effects (Priority: 5/5): Long delays between submission and acceptance create serious costs for early-career economists and may discourage risk-taking research. Connections, geography, and gatekeeping (Priority: 5/5): The episode explores whether editorial ties, former PhD relationships, and institutional geography influence publication outcomes, with evidence suggesting connections matter. Race and representation in economics publishing (Priority: 4/5): The book includes chapters on systemic racism, underrepresentation of Black economists, and the profession’s limited training to study race-related issues. COVID-19 and alternative dissemination (Priority: 4/5): The COVID-19 research boom highlighted the value of faster dissemination through preprints and repositories like COVID Economics, beyond the traditional journal pipeline.

Key Arguments: Journal publication still matters because it certifies research quality and strongly influences career advancement. The profession places excessive weight on top-five journals, which can unfairly shape promotion and distort research incentives. Citation counts are the best available metric but should be interpreted cautiously because citation patterns vary across fields and can be strategically manipulated. Publication delays, especially pre-acceptance lag, harm junior economists on tenure clocks and may push them toward safer projects. Connecting to editors can improve publication chances; in some cases this may reflect information advantages, but nepotism cannot be ruled out. A lack of Black economists in faculty positions and limited expertise on systemic racism show that publishing and hiring practices contribute to broader inequities. The rapid COVID-19 publishing response demonstrated the value of preprints and faster forms of dissemination in urgent situations.

Data Points: Share of REPEC-registered economists based in the US: about 20% - Used to illustrate concentration of economists in the US Share of country-focused research on the US: about 50% - Shows geographic skew in economics research topics Submission-to-acceptance delay in the 1970s: about 8 months - Historical baseline for publication lag Submission-to-acceptance delay in the early 2000s: about 1.5 years - Illustrates increasing publication delays Sections in the edited e-book: 6 sections - Structure of Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics Publication lag comparison: top journals take long enough that acceptance, not publication date, is the key certification moment - Explains why acceptance timing matters most for careers COVID Economics launch timing: end of March 2020 - Repository launched by CEPR to rapidly disseminate COVID research

Pivotal Quotes: "There is no shortcut to reading papers in science." — Sebastian Galiani: On why journal publication remains important despite blogs, working papers, and fast dissemination channels "economists believe in markets, but not for paper" — John Cochrane (quoted by Ugo Panizza): Used to criticize the monopoly-like power of top journals and argue for more competition among outlets "creating a system that fosters competition among journals may be the way out of this" — Ugo Panizza: On reforming incentives and reducing the overconcentration of prestige in a few journals

Implications: The episode calls for reform in how economists judge success: less reliance on top-five journals, more attention to diverse outlets and fields, faster review, and greater transparency about bias, connections, and representation.