I said "I happen to think that much of what the profession demands is
unnecessary,
boring, absurd, and counter-productive but what has this to do with the
way journals are refereed?"
Pete responded "Well, that is the question isn't it?"
Yes, it is the question that Frey doesn't answer.
Pete writes "How about lack of accountability in double-blind systems?
How about intellectual fadism within a profession? We have a problem of
conspicous production in academics."
But where is the argument that connects lack of accountability in
double-blind systems to any of the substantive complaints we (or Frey)
have about the industry? Do you really think that single or no-blind
would lead to more relevant economics? If anything, double-blind does
something to break the cartel although I don't think that it changes
content much at all (i.e. it gives lesser-known people a better shot at
the big journals but they still have to do the sort of work the
profession likes).
Furthering Robin's comments recall that economists do not have an
unusual method of editing journals - practically all journals in all
countries use a similar system so its hard to argue that the system is
dominated. About the only profession that is different is law - would
anyone care to make an argument that student edited journals are the way
to go???!!!!!
Alex
--
Dr. Alexander Tabarrok
Vice President and Director of Research
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA, 94621-1428
Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
