There is a quiet but nonetheless significant and persistent disagreement among members of the scholarly community of economists regarding appraisal of scientific merit. On one side are those who believe, implicitly or explicitly, that there is a competitive market for scientific ideas in economics in which major contributions (and the individuals who make them) are identified relatively efficiently. In contrast to what we might refer to as the free-market side of the discipline are those who believe that the prevailing process of scientific appraisal is quite inefficient and therefore unreliable. That is, the process is characterized by market failure. The ongoing skirmishes between these two camps involve two quite distinct aspects of scholarship: (1) the imperative, as it were, for an individual to publish in mainstream economics journals to be taken seriously by the profession as a whole, and (2) the use of citations as a measure of the impact of a contribution to the scholarly literature of economics. We address these issues in turn. PUBLISHING IN THE “MAINSTREAM ” ECONOMICS JOURNALS To be relevant in any meaningful sense to a community of scholars, scientific truth cannot simply be self-evident. It is not enough for the individual qua scientist to maintain that he has been enlightened and knows the truth. The community of scholars must be convinced of the veracity of that truth. The truth is not relevant if it is not a shared truth—the smaller the set of true believers and the greater the group’s tendency to speak only among themselves, the more likely the group is to be regarded by the rest of the scientific community as merely a cult. 1 Convincing other scholars that your scientific contribution is substantial may indeed be difficult, especially if that contribution is at odds with prevailing orthodoxy.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.