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]