This website uses cookies.

By clicking the "Accept" button or continuing to browse our site, you agree to first-party and session-only cookies being stored on your device to enhance site navigation and analyze site performance and traffic. For more information on our use of cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Journal of Economic Perspectives
  4. Search Results
  5. Facts and Myths about Refereeing

Journal of Economic Perspectives

ISSN 0895-3309 (Print) | ISSN 1944-7965 (Online)

Facts and Myths about Refereeing

  • Daniel S. Hamermesh
Journal of Economic Perspectives
vol. 8, no. 1, Winter 1994
(pp. 153–163)
Download Full Text PDF
(Complimentary)

Abstract

Referees' and editors' behavior is illustrated by data from a random sample of refereeing requests by seven economics journals. Referees tend to be higher-quality (better-cited, prime-age) than authors. Except for a few superstar authors, there is no matching of authors and referees by quality. Nearly 80 percent of those asked to referee do so, with a median completion time of less than two months. Except for a few very slow referees and another few who promise but fail to accomplish the task, the slow editorial process is not due to referees' behavior. Paying referees speeds the job, mainly by speeding up those who would barely not qualify for the fee.

Citation

Hamermesh, Daniel S. 1994. "Facts and Myths about Refereeing." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 (1): 153–163. DOI: 10.1257/jep.8.1.153

JEL Classification

  • A14 Sociology of Economics
There are no comments for this article.
Login to Comment