Abstract
We examine editors’ influence on the scientific content of academic journals by unpacking the role of three major forces: journals’ missions, aggregate supply of and demand for specific topics, and scientific homophily via editorial gatekeeping. In a sample of top biomedical journals, we find that the first two forces explain the vast majority of variation in published content. The upper bound of the homophily effect is statistically significant but practically unimportant. Marginal editorial changes thus likely do not meaningfully impact journals’ content in the short run. However, we do not rule out persistent or pervasive frictions in the publication process.
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
