Re: fantastically entertaining paper
On 6/21/02 Peter J Boettke wrote: >I don't think that either of you has dealt with McCloskey's kelly green golf >shoes criticism of economics. Why be so complacent about the consumer >preferences currently expressed in the market? I think all we've said is that in a competitive industry where entry is easy enough, there's not much point in advocating that firms adopt technologies that are easy to try and have widely been tried. If they're not being used, its probably because they're not so great, because there's a market failure, or because consumers have the "wrong" preferences. I'd be happy if more others shared our preferences, I'll do my part to preach to accomplish this, and I do think that preaching helps. But its damn hard. >I would be interested in hearing the reasons why we should presume that >preferences are being accurately conveyed in this "market" in the absence of >the institutions of property, prices and profit and loss. You keep saying this, but academia seems to me to have all these institutions. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper
William Sjostrom wrote: > > I agree that academia wastes vast resources relative to the goal of seeking > > truth, but I disagree that this implies a market failure, mainly because I > > don't think the ultimate customers fundamentally want truth. In fact, I > > think customers in part want faddism and cults of personality. > > ... Even if we grant that the great bulk of academic publishing is > useless dreck, it does not follow that it is wasteful. Grain is > usually shipped on large ships, and is dumped into the holds through large > chutes. A non-trivial amount is lost in the process, I agree that the mere fact that of useless dreck does not imply an overall failure. Even an ideal institution for generating truth would probably generate lots of useless dreck in the attempt to find a few valuable gems. My grounds for believing that there is more waste than can be attibuted to this are based on other sorts of observations, like what I think Alex and Pete have in mind.
Re: fantastically entertaining paper
Well, yes it is a dependent variable, but the point is to change the consumer --- we talk too much to ourselves, how about if we were forced to talk to a different audience -- say the everyman (as Hazlitt or Dan Klein suggest) or the policy maker (as is the case in transition economies and developing economies). I don't think that either of you has dealt with McCloskey's kelly green golf shoes criticism of economics. Why be so complacent about the consumer preferences currently expressed in the market? Moreover, why be so confident that consumer preferences are being served? First, what is readership like at the top journals compared to the community of scholars it supposedly serves? Second, what about the coordination issue Bryan raises? (a form of the peacock feathers argument) I have to head off to a conference so I will have to sign off on this, but I would be interested in hearing the reasons why we should presume that preferences are being accurately conveyed in this "market" in the absence of the institutions of property, prices and profit and loss. Pete Peter J. Boettke, Deputy Director James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy Department of Economics, MSN 3G4 George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030 PHONE: 703-993-1149 FAX: 703-993-1133 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOMEPAGE: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/pboettke - Original Message - From: "Alex Tabarrok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 5:39 PM Subject: Re: fantastically entertaining paper > Robin probably regrets using the word "cheap" in regard to entry as > this has clearly confused some people. As Robin later pointed out he > meant "cheap" to mean the journal industry approximates the economic > concept of free entry (more than many other industries we all think of > as competitive). > > Now, I hope that none of us would say that the market for > restaurants is not competitive because it costs about $250,000 to start > a new restaurant and therefore entry is expensive. Yet some comments > regarding entry into the journal market make exactly this mistake. > > By the way, the journal market has exploded in recent decades with > many entrants. > > Thus, if one is going to complain about the output of the journal > market one should look at the preferences of its customers. A parallel > I have noted in other context is that sometimes people trained in the > Buchanan style of constitutional economics think that all that is > required to get better policy is that we change the rules of the game > when in truth sometimes there is no choice but to change the preferences > of the players. > > Thus when Pete says "Change the nature of the way resarch is published > and presented and the research game will change within the academy." > Well of course! Who would deny that? :) But the "nature of the way > research is published and presented" is a dependent not an independent > variable! > > 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] > >
Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper
Bill Sjostrom wrote: "Clearly, there are journals that exist solely as outlets for economists at little teaching colleges to get in the one or two papers they need for tenure, for no obvious reason." What are some examples of those journals? Also, what are some good lines of research or questions or methods that are not being used or looked at due to the current state of the profession and the way journals are run? Cyril Morong
Re: fantastically entertaining paper
Robin probably regrets using the word "cheap" in regard to entry as this has clearly confused some people. As Robin later pointed out he meant "cheap" to mean the journal industry approximates the economic concept of free entry (more than many other industries we all think of as competitive). Now, I hope that none of us would say that the market for restaurants is not competitive because it costs about $250,000 to start a new restaurant and therefore entry is expensive. Yet some comments regarding entry into the journal market make exactly this mistake. By the way, the journal market has exploded in recent decades with many entrants. Thus, if one is going to complain about the output of the journal market one should look at the preferences of its customers. A parallel I have noted in other context is that sometimes people trained in the Buchanan style of constitutional economics think that all that is required to get better policy is that we change the rules of the game when in truth sometimes there is no choice but to change the preferences of the players. Thus when Pete says "Change the nature of the way resarch is published and presented and the research game will change within the academy." Well of course! Who would deny that? :) But the "nature of the way research is published and presented" is a dependent not an independent variable! 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]
Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper
> I agree that academia wastes vast resources relative to the goal of seeking > truth, but I disagree that this implies a market failure, mainly because I > don't think the ultimate customers fundamentally want truth. In fact, I > think customers in part want faddism and cults of personality. Posner, I think, pointed out that there are species of fish that lay thousands of eggs merely to produce one or two offspring that make it to adulthood. Even if we grant that the great bulk of academic publishing is useless dreck, it does not follow that it is wasteful. It may well be that the same net output may be producible with lots of low quality or with a little high quality. How readily high and low quality can be substituted for one another depends on the product. I offer an example from the only industry I know anything about. Grain is usually shipped on large ships, and is dumped into the holds through large chutes. A non-trivial amount is lost in the process, because it isn't worth the cost to save it all (although there have been improvements over the years reducing the loss). The loss is compounded as the grain is transferred, between ships and terminals, and between trains and terminals, many times. A very good way to eliminate the waste is to package the grain into containers and seal them for the duration of the trip. Very little grain is shipped that way (usually expensive seeds), because the lost grain is usually less valuable than the cost of containerizing. Milgrom and Roberts' text mentions the same problem in car production, comparing Toyota and GM. They note that back in the fifties when Toyota was small, inventories were expensive for it relative to the cost of inventories for GM, because GM was so much larger and therefore bore proportionally smaller inventory costs (by the law of large numbers). Hence the use of just-in-time production. Just-in-time requires tight quality controls, because defective parts are a problem if your inputs arrive just as you are using them. If you maintain large parts inventories, you replace defective parts out of inventory. For GM, lower average quality of purchased inventory could produce the same average quality of used inventory, so long as GM bore inventory costs. Toyota's higher inventory costs made that an unprofitable production decision. So, I think the question of whether the production of dreck (or alternatively clever theorizing of no use to anyone) is wasteful requires that we have some idea of how best to produce good research. Clearly, there are journals that exist solely as outlets for economists at little teaching colleges to get in the one or two papers they need for tenure, for no obvious reason. Beyond that, though, it is not at all obvious to me how you get "The Problem of Social Cost" or "The Fable of the Bees" while avoiding uninteresting or pointless work. Bill Sjostrom + William Sjostrom Senior Lecturer Department of Economics National University of Ireland, Cork Cork, Ireland +353-21-490-2091 (work) +353-21-427-3920 (fax) +353-21-463-4056 (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ucc.ie/~sjostrom/
RE: fantastically entertaining paper
I wonder if entry is cheap. To effectively enter this market, you have to do more than edit articles and print copies of the journal. You have to attract valued contributions and thereby, readers. I believe contributors send articles to journals on the basis of their brand name. How can a journal build its brand name? Have any journals sought to build a brand name by paying well-known scholars for their contributions for several years? The most expensive academic journals are in the fields of science, technology and medicine. European commercial publishers who charge thousands for an annual institutional subscription own the most prestigious of these journals. A few years ago a few American universities looked into starting up their own competitors to the STM leaders. Nothing came of it. I suspect they discovered that entry costs were high as was the risk of failure. Academic books cost a lot because their markets are small (300-500 copies on average per title) while production costs are relatively high. Total production costs for an academic press run of 500 copies are in the $30,000 range. Unit sales are so small in part because universities heavily subsidize book production. Even if all the subsidies were dedicated to the demand side (or were eliminated), academic books would be expensive compared to the average trade book. Without production subsidies, however, there would many fewer producers. And the world would be a better place. John Samples Cato Institute -Original Message- From: Michael Etchison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 1:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: fantastically entertaining paper Robin Hanson: Michael E. Etchison wrote: > >an industry (academic journals) where . . . entry is cheap > >>As a non-academic, I have to wonder -- if getting in is so cheap, why is getting a copy so expensive?<< >Standard armchair econ question, really. Yes, I know, and I know what "we'd suspect." I was wondering if anyone had some grounded explanations. Michael Michael E. Etchison Texas Wholesale Power Report MLE Consulting www.mleconsulting.com 1423 Jackson Road Kerrville, TX 78028 (830) 895-4005
Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper
Wait a minute Alex, I am not sure that journal organization has little to do with the professional organization in the university. Change the nature of the way resarch is published and presented and the research game will change within the academy. Journals are like the arbiter of the rules that govern academic discourse if you change the idea of what a good question is, or more importantly even for this conversation, what a good answer is, then the academic game will change accordingly. I admit to selection bias, but I am not sure we can avoid it on this topic. BTW, I hope nobody views my comments as whining about the profession, because they are not meant to be in that vein. It is just that I think much of what goes on in the profession as so-called research is intellectual masturbation. That is fine in itself but the opportunity cost is a more relevant economics engage in social intercourse. Those of us who want to make this argument are failing to persuade our colleagues of the benefits of this and as a result have nobody to blaim but ourselves. Peter J. Boettke, Deputy Director James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy Department of Economics, MSN 3G4 George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030 PHONE: 703-993-1149 FAX: 703-993-1133 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOMEPAGE: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/pboettke - Original Message - From: "Alex Tabarrok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 12:50 PM Subject: Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper > Pete writes "We go through an entire process of being cultured to the > ways of the > profession called graduate school and especially the process of writing > a > dissertation and getting a job. Then you get more of that as an > assistant > professor -- especially if you are at a top 20 research university. You > learn to value certain journals and types of arguments and dismiss other > types of arguments and evidence as "not serious". If you resist you are > thrown out, if you try to assimilate and fail you are thrown out." > > > Yes, this is correct - this is why journal organization form has very > little to do with the substantive issues that you and I care about. > This seems obvious to me. > > The examples you give of good editors are biased because self-selected! > > 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] > >
Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper
OK Robin so you want to say that consumer wants not truth or relevance but signals about smartness. Then our profession is doing a decent job, but the opportunity cost of this is huge. Economics is a particularly relevant discipline for public policy and social understanding. I believe there our truths in the economic world that are particularly costly not to recognize. Can you make an argument that the unintended consequence of this smartness signalling actually is closer approximations to the truth? If so, then I think you would have a neat argument. BTW, in the economy we can discuss efficiency (technical) because somehow the underlying realities of tastes, technology and resource endowment are reflected in the induced variables of prices and profit/loss. If there was no connection between these, then in what sense would we be able to talk about allocational efficiency? Similarly, in academics if we don't have an underlying reality of "truth" and the scientific community somehow following the induced variables of prestige, position, power that gets at closer approximations of the underlying "reality" then in what sense is the academic market efficiently organized? Pete Peter J. Boettke, Deputy Director James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy Department of Economics, MSN 3G4 George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030 PHONE: 703-993-1149 FAX: 703-993-1133 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOMEPAGE: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/pboettke - Original Message - From: "Robin Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 11:14 AM Subject: Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper > Peter J. Boettke wrote: > >... But the bottom line problem with this > >entrepreneurial hope in the market for academic economics is that we don't > >have institutions that serve the functions analogous to property, prices and > >profit and loss. > > The standard story is that authors have a property right in their articles, > which are in effect sold to students, and research patrons. Journals and > universities are intermediaries in this process, but all these transactions > seem to voluntary, and real money is on the line. What's wrong with this > story? > > >P.S.: Robin, I think the statement that entry is cheap is a little dubious. > >We go through an entire process ... graduate school ... getting a job. ... > > The topic was entry into the journal industry, which takes even more effort > than entry into the professor industry. But I meant "easy" in the > industrial organization sense of closer to free entry than to monopoly. > I'm sure its not easy to be a farmer, but farming also seems to be an > industry where entry is easy enough to keep the industry competitive. > > >... Scholarship should never be cheap, nor easy, nor kind ... > >but I think it is at best a noble lie to believe that the truth wins out in > >academics ... Careerism, fadism, cults of personality, and generally a > >waste of intellectual resources describe academic life, not truth seeking > >and original thinking. I would have thought you'd be more sympathetic. > > I agree that academia wastes vast resources relative to the goal of seeking > truth, but I disagree that this implies a market failure, mainly because I > don't think the ultimate customers fundamentally want truth. In fact, I > think customers in part want faddism and cults of personality. > > My working model of academia is that students and research patrons primarily > pay to be associated with people who are publicly validated to be smart in > certain ways. People try to show that they are smart by publishing writings > that are articulate, clever, thought-provoking, require difficult techniques, > and anticipate fads. Truth is often a side-effect, but is incidental to > the main purposes of the parties involved. Different academic disciplines > have settled into equilibria with different mixtures of these elements. I > think this model can explain many otherwise puzzling features of academia. > > [We had a similar discussion of this topic on this list last November] > > > Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu > Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- > 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 > >
RE: fantastically entertaining paper
Robin Hanson: Michael E. Etchison wrote: > >an industry (academic journals) where . . . entry is cheap > >>As a non-academic, I have to wonder -- if getting in is so cheap, why is getting a copy so expensive?<< >Standard armchair econ question, really. Yes, I know, and I know what "we'd suspect." I was wondering if anyone had some grounded explanations. Michael Michael E. Etchison Texas Wholesale Power Report MLE Consulting www.mleconsulting.com 1423 Jackson Road Kerrville, TX 78028 (830) 895-4005
Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper
Pete writes "We go through an entire process of being cultured to the ways of the profession called graduate school and especially the process of writing a dissertation and getting a job. Then you get more of that as an assistant professor -- especially if you are at a top 20 research university. You learn to value certain journals and types of arguments and dismiss other types of arguments and evidence as "not serious". If you resist you are thrown out, if you try to assimilate and fail you are thrown out." Yes, this is correct - this is why journal organization form has very little to do with the substantive issues that you and I care about. This seems obvious to me. The examples you give of good editors are biased because self-selected! 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]
Re: fantastically entertaining paper
Bryan D Caplan wrote: > > Here we have an industry (academic journals) where concentration > > is low, entry is cheap, and most firms use the same production > > technology (referees with veto power), even though an alternate > > technology (editors pick) has long been tried, and is easy to try. > > Frey claims that it is a market failure not to use this alternate > > tech, because the standard tech has agency costs, which has the > > effect of raising the costs to one of the inputs (authors). > >I must have raised this issue before, but aren't you leaving out a key >competitive assumption, namely profit maximization? If you have a ton >of firms but their motive is not financial success, most of the standard >results don't go through. You might appeal to survivorship (with >randomly assigned objective functions, profit maximizers gradually take >over), but if non-profits have a continual stream of subsidies that does >not have to work. A great many journals are owned by for-profit entities. And "subsidies" do not undermine the survivorship analysis - "subsidies" are just another name for a customer revenue stream that profit-maximizing entities would also take into account. >How about simple coordination failure? The AER is focally viewed as the >top econ journal. If one person says the AER sucks and ignores it he >mostly hurts his own prospects. A lot of people would have to >coordinate on an alternative at once for this to change. The topic was referee vetoes versus strong editors. There have long been journals with strong editors, and I don't see much social pressure against people who like such journals. There might be other coordination failures with people liking the AER, but if so they must be about some other fixed feature of the AER besides referee vetoes. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: fantastically entertaining paper
Peter J Boettke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "have a central posting service and then judge articles on how much they are downloaded..." Wouldn't that just give the incentive to write interesting titles and abstracts so that the papers will be downloaded? "Damn the content! I just want to be downloaded" sort of a thing? -jsh = "...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely because that other has done him no wrong." -Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper
Peter J. Boettke wrote: >... But the bottom line problem with this >entrepreneurial hope in the market for academic economics is that we don't >have institutions that serve the functions analogous to property, prices and >profit and loss. The standard story is that authors have a property right in their articles, which are in effect sold to students, and research patrons. Journals and universities are intermediaries in this process, but all these transactions seem to voluntary, and real money is on the line. What's wrong with this story? >P.S.: Robin, I think the statement that entry is cheap is a little dubious. >We go through an entire process ... graduate school ... getting a job. ... The topic was entry into the journal industry, which takes even more effort than entry into the professor industry. But I meant "easy" in the industrial organization sense of closer to free entry than to monopoly. I'm sure its not easy to be a farmer, but farming also seems to be an industry where entry is easy enough to keep the industry competitive. >... Scholarship should never be cheap, nor easy, nor kind ... >but I think it is at best a noble lie to believe that the truth wins out in >academics ... Careerism, fadism, cults of personality, and generally a >waste of intellectual resources describe academic life, not truth seeking >and original thinking. I would have thought you'd be more sympathetic. I agree that academia wastes vast resources relative to the goal of seeking truth, but I disagree that this implies a market failure, mainly because I don't think the ultimate customers fundamentally want truth. In fact, I think customers in part want faddism and cults of personality. My working model of academia is that students and research patrons primarily pay to be associated with people who are publicly validated to be smart in certain ways. People try to show that they are smart by publishing writings that are articulate, clever, thought-provoking, require difficult techniques, and anticipate fads. Truth is often a side-effect, but is incidental to the main purposes of the parties involved. Different academic disciplines have settled into equilibria with different mixtures of these elements. I think this model can explain many otherwise puzzling features of academia. [We had a similar discussion of this topic on this list last November] Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
RE: fantastically entertaining paper
Michael E. Etchison wrote: > >an industry (academic journals) where . . . entry is cheap > >As a non-academic, I have to wonder -- if getting in is so cheap, why is >getting a copy so expensive? Standard armchair econ question, really. If prices are going up, and quantity is going up, we'd suspect demand is up. If quantity is going down, we'd suspect costs are going up. Or maybe price discrimination is getting easier, and you're just looking at the prices the high value customers pay. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: fantastically entertaining paper
I like Bryan's coordination failure idea --- we have a sort of peacock feathers problem. This is born out, I believe, in the evidence on how much the average article in the AER is read. The idea that the AER is the "best" journal as Bryan said a coordination issue. This is why I like one version of the Tullock solution --- eliminate the journals per se and have a central posting service and then judge articles on how much they are downloaded. I bet this would improve the information conveyed in abstracts and also change the incentive for people writing a few lousy papers since everything will be reputation based, etc. Sure there will be problems with this, but think about the potential benefits and then we can weight them against the potential costs and see if that system would on net a viable alternative to the current situation. Peter J. Boettke, Deputy Director James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy Department of Economics, MSN 3G4 George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030 PHONE: 703-993-1149 FAX: 703-993-1133 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOMEPAGE: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/pboettke - Original Message - From: "Bryan D Caplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:29 PM Subject: Re: fantastically entertaining paper > Robin Hanson wrote: > > > Here we have an industry (academic journals) where concentration > > is low, entry is cheap, and most firms use the same production > > technology (referees with veto power), even though an alternate > > technology (editors pick) has long been tried, and is easy to try. > > Frey claims that it is a market failure not to use this alternate > > tech, because the standard tech has agency costs, which has the > > effect of raising the costs to one of the inputs (authors). > > I must have raised this issue before, but aren't you leaving out a key > competitive assumption, namely profit maximization? If you have a ton > of firms but their motive is not financial success, most of the standard > results don't go through. You might appeal to survivorship (with > randomly assigned objective functions, profit maximizers gradually take > over), but if non-profits have a continual stream of subsidies that does > not have to work. > > > If this were any other industry, I'm sure Frey would be among > > the first to make the standard economist's response: If your > > preferred tech is easy, has long been tried, and has lower costs > > without other disadvantages, in a competitive industry why > > hasn't it long displaced the standard tech? I'm sure a clever > > person could come up with an externality or asymmetric information > > market failure argument, but the amazing thing is that Frey > > doesn't even try here. > > How about simple coordination failure? The AER is focally viewed as the > top econ journal. If one person says the AER sucks and ignores it he > mostly hurts his own prospects. A lot of people would have to > coordinate on an alternative at once for this to change. > > > I'd say that the key stumbling block to a better theory of academic > > journals is identifying the real customers and their preferences. > > > > Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu > > Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University > > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- > > 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 > > -- > Prof. Bryan Caplan >Department of Economics George Mason University > http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "He lives in deadly terror of agreeing; > 'Twould make him seem an ordinary being. > Indeed, he's so in love with contradiction, > He'll turn against his most profound conviction > And with a furious eloquence deplore it, > If only someone else is speaking for it." > Moliere, *The Misanthrope* > >
Re: fantastically entertaining paper
Robin Hanson wrote: > Here we have an industry (academic journals) where concentration > is low, entry is cheap, and most firms use the same production > technology (referees with veto power), even though an alternate > technology (editors pick) has long been tried, and is easy to try. > Frey claims that it is a market failure not to use this alternate > tech, because the standard tech has agency costs, which has the > effect of raising the costs to one of the inputs (authors). I must have raised this issue before, but aren't you leaving out a key competitive assumption, namely profit maximization? If you have a ton of firms but their motive is not financial success, most of the standard results don't go through. You might appeal to survivorship (with randomly assigned objective functions, profit maximizers gradually take over), but if non-profits have a continual stream of subsidies that does not have to work. > If this were any other industry, I'm sure Frey would be among > the first to make the standard economist's response: If your > preferred tech is easy, has long been tried, and has lower costs > without other disadvantages, in a competitive industry why > hasn't it long displaced the standard tech? I'm sure a clever > person could come up with an externality or asymmetric information > market failure argument, but the amazing thing is that Frey > doesn't even try here. How about simple coordination failure? The AER is focally viewed as the top econ journal. If one person says the AER sucks and ignores it he mostly hurts his own prospects. A lot of people would have to coordinate on an alternative at once for this to change. > I'd say that the key stumbling block to a better theory of academic > journals is identifying the real customers and their preferences. > > Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu > Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- > 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] "He lives in deadly terror of agreeing; 'Twould make him seem an ordinary being. Indeed, he's so in love with contradiction, He'll turn against his most profound conviction And with a furious eloquence deplore it, If only someone else is speaking for it." Moliere, *The Misanthrope*
Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper
s/pboettke - Original Message - From: "Alex Tabarrok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 6:35 PM Subject: Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper > 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] > >
RE: fantastically entertaining paper
Surely at least part of the issue is that producers of academic articles are often the consumers. They derive status, prestige (and pay) through articles and reviewing, whilst they themselves do not pay for the end good. Certainly in the uk academics (I believe) and their departments are ranked and funded on the basis of publications - I guess a as proxy of productivity. How easy, and beneficial, to become engaged in a multi issue 'controversy' for everyone involved... David Mitchinson +447956256281 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Robin Hanson Sent: 20 June 2002 18:47 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: fantastically entertaining paper On 6/19/02, Bryan Caplan wrote: >I heartily recommend Bruno Frey's extremely fun working paper >"Publishing as Prostitution: Choosing Between One's Own Ideas and >Academic Failure." ... http://www.iew.unizh.ch/wp/iewwp117.pdf Peter Boettke added: >I completely agree with your assessment of Frey's paper. Well the paper is on an interesting topic that I'd like to see more papers on, but the paper is also an example of why we don't see more papers on this topic; people find it much harder to analyze topics where they personally have much at stake. As economic analysis, Frey's discussion is pretty weak. Here we have an industry (academic journals) where concentration is low, entry is cheap, and most firms use the same production technology (referees with veto power), even though an alternate technology (editors pick) has long been tried, and is easy to try. Frey claims that it is a market failure not to use this alternate tech, because the standard tech has agency costs, which has the effect of raising the costs to one of the inputs (authors). If this were any other industry, I'm sure Frey would be among the first to make the standard economist's response: If your preferred tech is easy, has long been tried, and has lower costs without other disadvantages, in a competitive industry why hasn't it long displaced the standard tech? I'm sure a clever person could come up with an externality or asymmetric information market failure argument, but the amazing thing is that Frey doesn't even try here. I'd say that the key stumbling block to a better theory of academic journals is identifying the real customers and their preferences. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper
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]
Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper
Let me also add that the basic assumption of Frey's article is also wrong - the assumption that editors slavishly follow referee's. My take is that it's editors choose referees, so the editor's really do choose the articles because they choose referees and indirectly choose the outcomes. Fabio
RE: fantastically entertaining paper
Robin Hanson: >Here we have an industry (academic journals) where . . . entry is cheap As a non-academic, I have to wonder -- if getting in is so cheap, why is getting a copy so expensive? Michael Michael E. Etchison Texas Wholesale Power Report MLE Consulting www.mleconsulting.com 1423 Jackson Road Kerrville, TX 78028 (830) 895-4005
Re: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper
Alex writes: 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? Well, that is the question isn't it? 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. This is why Tullock's thought experiments about how to arrange scientific inquiry are better than either whining about the profession or blindly accepting what goes on in the profession. Lets see which works have relevance to solving real world problems, or actually add value to philosophical discourse. We pay now for the line on the cv, rather than being paid for increasing the stock of human knowledge. The professional guild has its own organizational logic and this must be understood (a sort of nomenklatura system has emerged). Pete Peter J. Boettke, Deputy Director James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy Department of Economics, MSN 3G4 George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030 PHONE: 703-993-1149 FAX: 703-993-1133 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOMEPAGE: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/pboettke - Original Message - From: "Alex Tabarrok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 3:17 PM Subject: Not such a fantastically entertaining paper > In addition to Robin's comments I found the motivating factor of Frey's > paper to be weak. I take it that his main complaint is that referee's > force authors to prostitute themselves by making changes the authors > think are wrong. > > I personally have never experienced this problem and I would be > surprised if many people have, although I am willing to be enlightened. > To be sure, I have had papers rejected for bad reasons and sometimes I > have made changes to satisfy referees that I thought were not necessary > but I have never been asked to change a conclusion or to write something > I thought was false. In a few cases, referees have actually helped me > to improve the paper! (Yes, this does sometimes happen!). > > Now perhaps Frey is saying that the problem is that authors must > write their papers in a certain way even in order to have any hope of > getting published. Now certainly this is true - the profession demands > a particulary style of paper especially in the top journals. 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? Almost nothing. > > 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] > >
Not such a fantastically entertaining paper
In addition to Robin's comments I found the motivating factor of Frey's paper to be weak. I take it that his main complaint is that referee's force authors to prostitute themselves by making changes the authors think are wrong. I personally have never experienced this problem and I would be surprised if many people have, although I am willing to be enlightened. To be sure, I have had papers rejected for bad reasons and sometimes I have made changes to satisfy referees that I thought were not necessary but I have never been asked to change a conclusion or to write something I thought was false. In a few cases, referees have actually helped me to improve the paper! (Yes, this does sometimes happen!). Now perhaps Frey is saying that the problem is that authors must write their papers in a certain way even in order to have any hope of getting published. Now certainly this is true - the profession demands a particulary style of paper especially in the top journals. 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? Almost nothing. 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]
Re: fantastically entertaining paper
On 6/19/02, Bryan Caplan wrote: >I heartily recommend Bruno Frey's extremely fun working paper >"Publishing as Prostitution: Choosing Between One's Own Ideas and >Academic Failure." ... http://www.iew.unizh.ch/wp/iewwp117.pdf Peter Boettke added: >I completely agree with your assessment of Frey's paper. Well the paper is on an interesting topic that I'd like to see more papers on, but the paper is also an example of why we don't see more papers on this topic; people find it much harder to analyze topics where they personally have much at stake. As economic analysis, Frey's discussion is pretty weak. Here we have an industry (academic journals) where concentration is low, entry is cheap, and most firms use the same production technology (referees with veto power), even though an alternate technology (editors pick) has long been tried, and is easy to try. Frey claims that it is a market failure not to use this alternate tech, because the standard tech has agency costs, which has the effect of raising the costs to one of the inputs (authors). If this were any other industry, I'm sure Frey would be among the first to make the standard economist's response: If your preferred tech is easy, has long been tried, and has lower costs without other disadvantages, in a competitive industry why hasn't it long displaced the standard tech? I'm sure a clever person could come up with an externality or asymmetric information market failure argument, but the amazing thing is that Frey doesn't even try here. I'd say that the key stumbling block to a better theory of academic journals is identifying the real customers and their preferences. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
