Are leading papers of better quality? Evidence from a natural experiment

Tom Coupé, Victor Ginsburgh, Abdul Noury

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

European countries in which universities rely on public funding increasingly follow the lead of the United Kingdom and run Research Assessment Exercises. Given the subjective nature of such evaluations, some scientists prefer verifiable measures such as citation counts. This, however, also is prone to problems since the number of cites is correlated, among others, with the order of appearance in an issue. In particular, leading papers are more cited. It is, thus, difficult to assess whether they are of better quality, or whether this happens because they appear first in an issue. We make use of a natural experiment that was carried out by a journal in which papers are randomly ordered in some issues, while this order is at the editors' discretion in other issues. Our estimates suggest that approximately two thirds of the additional cites are due to going first, and one third to higher quality.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbergpp019
Pages (from-to)1-11
Number of pages11
JournalOxford Economic Papers
Volume62
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 19 2009

Fingerprint

Natural experiment
Evaluation
Discretion
Citations
Research assessment exercise
Public funding
European countries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Economics and Econometrics

Cite this

Are leading papers of better quality? Evidence from a natural experiment. / Coupé, Tom; Ginsburgh, Victor; Noury, Abdul.

In: Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 62, No. 1, gpp019, 19.06.2009, p. 1-11.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Coupé, Tom ; Ginsburgh, Victor ; Noury, Abdul. / Are leading papers of better quality? Evidence from a natural experiment. In: Oxford Economic Papers. 2009 ; Vol. 62, No. 1. pp. 1-11.
@article{b888ae92ab4d43c6a8e5793f67f24ab1,
title = "Are leading papers of better quality? Evidence from a natural experiment",
abstract = "European countries in which universities rely on public funding increasingly follow the lead of the United Kingdom and run Research Assessment Exercises. Given the subjective nature of such evaluations, some scientists prefer verifiable measures such as citation counts. This, however, also is prone to problems since the number of cites is correlated, among others, with the order of appearance in an issue. In particular, leading papers are more cited. It is, thus, difficult to assess whether they are of better quality, or whether this happens because they appear first in an issue. We make use of a natural experiment that was carried out by a journal in which papers are randomly ordered in some issues, while this order is at the editors' discretion in other issues. Our estimates suggest that approximately two thirds of the additional cites are due to going first, and one third to higher quality.",
author = "Tom Coup{\'e} and Victor Ginsburgh and Abdul Noury",
year = "2009",
month = "6",
day = "19",
doi = "10.1093/oep/gpp019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "62",
pages = "1--11",
journal = "Oxford Economic Papers",
issn = "0030-7653",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are leading papers of better quality? Evidence from a natural experiment

AU - Coupé, Tom

AU - Ginsburgh, Victor

AU - Noury, Abdul

PY - 2009/6/19

Y1 - 2009/6/19

N2 - European countries in which universities rely on public funding increasingly follow the lead of the United Kingdom and run Research Assessment Exercises. Given the subjective nature of such evaluations, some scientists prefer verifiable measures such as citation counts. This, however, also is prone to problems since the number of cites is correlated, among others, with the order of appearance in an issue. In particular, leading papers are more cited. It is, thus, difficult to assess whether they are of better quality, or whether this happens because they appear first in an issue. We make use of a natural experiment that was carried out by a journal in which papers are randomly ordered in some issues, while this order is at the editors' discretion in other issues. Our estimates suggest that approximately two thirds of the additional cites are due to going first, and one third to higher quality.

AB - European countries in which universities rely on public funding increasingly follow the lead of the United Kingdom and run Research Assessment Exercises. Given the subjective nature of such evaluations, some scientists prefer verifiable measures such as citation counts. This, however, also is prone to problems since the number of cites is correlated, among others, with the order of appearance in an issue. In particular, leading papers are more cited. It is, thus, difficult to assess whether they are of better quality, or whether this happens because they appear first in an issue. We make use of a natural experiment that was carried out by a journal in which papers are randomly ordered in some issues, while this order is at the editors' discretion in other issues. Our estimates suggest that approximately two thirds of the additional cites are due to going first, and one third to higher quality.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952722367&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952722367&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/oep/gpp019

DO - 10.1093/oep/gpp019

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:77952722367

VL - 62

SP - 1

EP - 11

JO - Oxford Economic Papers

JF - Oxford Economic Papers

SN - 0030-7653

IS - 1

M1 - gpp019

ER -