We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Are Delays in Academic Publishing Necessary?
- Authors
Leslie, Derek
- Abstract
The article suggests an alternative to the existing pro bono system of peer review in academic journals. Authors decide where to submit their work but are not necessarily the best judges of its quality. Peer review determines true worth. Under rationality authors are aware that they are their own worst judges of quality. Everyone submits if the expected utility of submission exceeds the utility of the alternative strategy. The author assesses the costs and benefits of submitting. A break-even probability is established which makes it just worthwhile to take a chance on submitting. The first objective of journals is the acceptance standard because a higher acceptance standard means more prestige, although the journal may not aim to capture all papers that meet this standard. One reason why journals keep a backlog of accepted papers is to smooth out fluctuations in submission quality. A low acceptance rate means it is more expensive to identify each successful article. Thus, certainty gives the top journal considerable power in terms of meeting its objectives. There is no need to worry unduly about submission costs because the objectives are automatically achieved when authors are rational. The journal could respond to a high editorial burden by raising its submission costs, reducing submissions, and increasing the acceptance rate, but the price is a lower success rate.
- Publication
American Economic Review, 2005, Vol 95, Issue 1, p407
- ISSN
0002-8282
- Publication type
Academic Journal
- DOI
10.1257/0002828053828608