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

    VL - 62

    SP - 1

    EP - 11

    JO - Oxford Economic Papers

    JF - Oxford Economic Papers

    SN - 0030-7653

    IS - 1

    M1 - gpp019

    ER -