Abstract
Abstract This paper takes a fresh look at citation counts and publications in top-rank journals, which the academic economics profession uses to evaluate and promote its members. It first examines how and why citations are mentioned in an article, and what this implies about their counts. The discussion then examines how average citation counts to articles are used to rank journals, and the paper reviews the concerns that have been expressed about this practice. These concerns identify the large variance in citation counts among articles of the same journal, implying that those articles themselves must vary greatly in quality (Engemann and Wall 2009). To address these concerns, the paper proposes the classification of citations into three categories: Fodder Citations (for references that contribute only trivially to a paper), Relevant Citations (which substantively contribute to the paper, though the paper would remain roughly the same without them), and Essential Citations (which have a major influence). The paper argues that counts of citations by the last two categories offers greater credibility in the application of citation counts to evaluate economic literature. Finally, the paper provides an opportunity for economists to participate in a new project that solicits information on citations by these categories.
Highlights
This paper takes a fresh look at citation counts and publications in top-rank journals, which the academic economics profession uses to evaluate and promote its members
The discussion examines how average citation counts to articles are used to rank journals, and the paper reviews the concerns that have been expressed about this practice
The more familiar one is with the publication process in academic economics, the more one is inclined to be amused by the title of this paper
Summary
The more familiar one is with the publication process in academic economics, the more one is inclined to be amused by the title of this paper. Some might argue that, since the journals play such a crucial role in career development regardless of their contribution to knowledge, it would be better for them to support more junior researchers even if it means reducing the amount of new knowledge they provide All of this confusion could be resolved, perhaps, if the profession went the extra mile of assessing the true value and contribution made by journal articles and their authors, and considering the process by which junior members should rise in their careers, rather than counting citations as the only measure of quality. It is a shame that there was never in place a more legitimate citation system that would have required these authors to give credit in their paper to those other authors who were outside their prominent circle, but who have been actively promoting and publishing the same ideas all along
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
