Recently many editors try to reduce the turnaround times of academic journals. Shorter turnaround times, however, will induce many additional submissions of low-quality papers, increasing significantly the workload of editors and referees, and the number of rejections prior to publication. I suggest several ideas how editors can shorten turnaround times and four ideas how they can still avoid frivolous submissions, thus improving the review process efficiency: higher submission fees; requiring authors to review papers in proportion to their submissions; using differential editorial delay—letting low-quality papers wait more; and banning papers from being submitted after a certain number of rejections.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AzarOferH. (2004a) “Rejections and the importance of first response times,”International Journal of Social Economics31(3): 259–274.
2.
AzarOferH. (2004b) “The slowdown in first-response times of economics journals: Can it be beneficial?,”working paper, Northwestern University.
3.
AzarOferH. (2005) “The review process in economics: Is it too fast?,”Southern Economic Journal72(2): 482–491.
4.
AzarOferH. (2007) “Evolution of Social Norms with Heterogeneous Preferences: A General Model and an Application to the Academic Review Process,”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, forthcoming.
5.
→ BlankRebecca (1991) “The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from the American Economic Review,”American Economic Review81(5): 1041–1067.
6.
→ ChampernowneD. G.DeaneP. M.ReddawayW. B. (1973) The Economic Journal: Note by the editors,”The Economic Journal83(330): 495–504.
7.
→ ChangJuin-JenLaiChing-Chong (2001) “Is it worthwhile to pay referees?,”Southern Economic Journal68(2): 457–463.
8.
→ EllisonGlenn (2002a) “The slowdown of the economics publishing process,”Journal of Political Economy110(5): 947–993.
9.
→ EllisonGlenn (2002b) “Evolving standards for academic publishing: A q-r theory,”Journal of Political Economy110(5): 994–1034.
10.
→ EltonEdwinJ.GruberMartinJ. (1987) “Report of the managing editors of the Journal of Finance for 1986,”Journal of Finance42(3): 805–808.
11.
EngersMaximGansJoshuaS. (1998) “Why referees are not paid (enough),”American Economic Review88(5): 1341–1349.
12.
→ HamermeshDanielS. (1994) “Facts and myths about refereeing,”Journal of Economic Perspectives8(1): 153–163.
13.
→ GansJoshuaS.ShepherdGeorgeB. (1994) “How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists,”Journal of Economic Perspectives8(1): 165–180.
14.
→ LabandDavidN. (1990) “Is there value-added from the review process in economics?: Preliminary evidence from authors,”Quarterly Journal of Economics105(2): 341–352.
15.
→ LabandDavidN.PietteMichaelJ. (1994) “Does the “blindness” of peer review influence manuscript selection efficiency?,”Southern Economic Journal60(4): 896–906.
16.
→ LabandDavidN.PietteMichaelJ. (2000) “Perceived conduct and professional ethics among college economics faculty,”American Economist44(1): 24–33.
17.
MeyerDirk (2000) “On the information and selection function of economics articles—claims and reality,”Journal of Post Keynesian Economics23(1): 49–75.
18.
→ PressmanSteven (1994) “Simultaneous journal submissions: The case against,”American Journal of Economics and Sociology53(3): 316–333.
19.
ShepherdGeorgeB. (1995) Rejected: Leading Economists Ponder the Publication Process, Sun Lakes, Arizona: Thomas Horton and Daughters.
20.
→ SzenbergMichael (1994) “Disseminating scholarly output: The case for eliminating the exclusivity of journal submissions,”American Journal of Economics and Sociology53(3): 303–315.
21.
ThomsonWilliam (2001) A Guide for the Young Economist: Writing and Speaking Effectively about Economics, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
