Academic Research and the Strategic Interaction of Scholars and Editors: A Two-Stage Game

This paper presents a two-stage game in order to explore the strategic interaction between the editor of an academic journal and a representative scholar. At the outset of the game, the editor chooses the “characteristics” of the journal, which encompass its rejection rate and other facets of the journal’s profile. Next, the scholar decides whether or not to submit a paper to the journal. We show that scholars’ behavior precludes the possibility of low-quality journals. As such, editors have only the choice between managing high-quality journals with few issues or second-tier journals publishing many papers. Moreover, if our two-stage game suggests that higher costs for scholars contribute to journal quality, numerical simulation shows that the effect of these costs on journal quality may be low. Lastly, our game-theoretic approach points out that it is difficult for journal editors to define optimal rejection rates.

[1]  Ofer H. Azar The Slowdown in First-Response Times of Economics Journals: Can it Be Beneficial? , 2006 .

[2]  Glenn Ellison The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process , 2000 .

[3]  Arthur G. Bedeian,et al.  The Manuscript Review Process , 2003 .

[4]  Sam-Ho Lee,et al.  A theory of self-selection in a market with matching frictions: An application to delay in refereeing times in economics journals , 2009 .

[5]  Damien Besancenot,et al.  A Matching Model of the Academic Publication Market , 2010 .

[6]  Rajeev K. Goel The Game Academics Play: Comment , 2006 .

[7]  Ofer H. Azar A Model of the Academic Review Process with Informed Authors , 2015 .

[8]  Lawrence Feick,et al.  Publish and Prosper: The Financial Impact of Publishing by Marketing Faculty , 2008, Mark. Sci..

[9]  João Ricardo Faria,et al.  Faculty Promotion in Academe: Theory and Evidence from U.S. Economics Departments , 2013 .

[10]  David A. Katz Faculty Salaries, Promotion, and Productivity at a Large University , 1973 .

[11]  Damien Besancenot,et al.  Can incentives for research harm research? A business schools’ tale , 2008 .

[12]  Ofer H. Azar Evolution of Social Norms with Heterogeneous Preferences: A General Model and an Application to the Academic Review Process , 2008 .

[13]  S. Oster,et al.  The Optimal Order for Submitting Manuscripts , 1980 .

[14]  Daniel S. Hamermesh,et al.  The Young Economist's Guide to Professional Etiquette , 1992 .

[15]  Kala Krishna,et al.  The Inside Scoop: Acceptance and Rejection at the Journal of International Economics , 2008 .

[16]  Kim P. Huynh,et al.  Search and research: the influence of editorial boards on journals’ quality , 2012, Theory and Decision.

[17]  W. J. Moore,et al.  Academic Pay in the United Kingdom and the United States: The Differential Returns to Productivity and the Lifetime Earnings Gap , 2007 .

[18]  D. Hamermesh,et al.  Reputation and Earnings: The Roles of Quality and Quantity in Academe , 2012 .

[19]  Ofer H. Azar,et al.  The Review Process in Economics: Is it Too Fast? , 2005 .

[20]  D. Laband Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors , 1990 .

[21]  David N. Laband,et al.  Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors , 1994, Journal of Political Economy.

[22]  Diego Nocetti,et al.  Where Should We Submit Our Manuscript? An Analysis of Journal Submission Strategies , 2009 .

[23]  Charles Oppenheim,et al.  The Influence of Peer Review on the Research Assessment Exercise , 2004, J. Inf. Sci..

[24]  João Ricardo Faria,et al.  The Game Academics Play: Editors Versus Authors , 2005 .

[25]  Derek Leslie Are Delays in Academic Publishing Necessary , 2005 .