• The reach of papers in top journals

    H/t Paul Kelleher for drawing my attention to the Robert Frank NYT piece on rising college costs. I may want the bold bit in the following for later. Not trusting myself to remember it, this will help.

    Richard H. Thaler, a former colleague at Cornell and another contributor to the Economic View column, once remarked about an unsuccessful candidate for a faculty position, “What his résumé lacked was five bad papers.” By that, he meant that while the candidate had published several papers containing enough genuinely important ideas to satisfy any rational hiring committee — more than could be said of most faculty members — he had too few to satisfy the bean counters, who fretted about how uninformed outsiders might react to the appointment.

    Researchers have responded as expected to these incentives. But the additional papers they’ve written have added little value. The economist Philip Cook and I found, for example, that in the first five years after publication, many fewer than half of all papers in the two most selective economics journals had ever been cited by other scholars.

    The emphasis is mine.

    @afrakt

    Share
    Comments closed