This setting lets you change the way you view articles. You can choose to have articles open in a dialog window, a new tab, or directly in the same window.
Open in Dialog
Open in New Tab
Open in same window
Open in New Tab
Open in same window
Journal of Economic Perspectives: Vol. 8 No. 1 (Winter 1994)
JEP Volume. 8, Issue 1 | 
Previous ArticleNext Article
Sign up for Email Alerts Follow us on Twitter
Full-text Article (Complimentary)
View Comments on This Article (0) | Login to post a comment
Previous ArticleNext Article
Expand
Quick Tools:
Print Article Summary Email Link to this Article Export CitationSign up for Email Alerts Follow us on Twitter
Explore:
Facts and Myths about Refereeing
Article 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
DOI: 10.1257/jep.8.1.153
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.
Article Full-Text Access
Full-text Article (Complimentary)
Authors
Hamermesh, Daniel S. (U TX and NBER)
JEL Classifications
A14: Sociology of Economics
Comments
View Comments on This Article (0) | Login to post a comment
