Arnold Kling  

Publication Tournament?

PRINT
Trade Conference... All Holes, No Cheese?...

If I think that economics students should be given ratings like tournament chess players, then naturally I would like this suggestion from David Tufte


for evaluating academic research, maintaining quality, and speeding up the process. Send 2 papers to an anonymous referee. Have them pick the best one. Only! Pair the winner with the winner of some other pair. Repeat as needed. Notify the losing authors only of what round they lost in, and permit resubmissions.

For Discussion. Suppose that we substitute "blogger" for referee. Could we disintermediate the journals?


Comments and Sharing


CATEGORIES: Economic Education



TRACKBACKS (3 to date)
TrackBack URL: http://econlog.econlib.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/136
The author at voluntaryXchange in a related article titled Journal Disintermediation? writes:
    Arnold Kling phrased the idea behind my recent post in a way I hadn't considered. In "Hot or Not Academic Research" I advocated having working papers judged tournament style. He referred to this as journal disintermediation. That's a lot further [Tracked on October 8, 2004 11:55 AM]
COMMENTS (2 to date)
Jason Ligon writes:

It would be much better than the bowl system we currently use ...

Paul N writes:

Sorry guys; I like new ideas, but you're way off base on this one. Majorities are often wrong in the long term. What's popular now can turn out to be complete crap. Controversial ideas would get squelched unfairly. It's tempting to idealize the average blogger, but in the end you'll be even more frustrated with your judging pool of bloggers than you were with your "arbitrary" choices for reviewers.

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top