2020•Oxford Economic PapersRequires access

Rejecting rejections—seeking acceptance of experimental economics in economics journals

Andrej Svorenčík

Open publisher page 5 citations

Abstract

Abstract This paper addresses a central question of the experimental turn in economics: how a relatively small group of experimental economists in the 1970s and 1980s managed to convince editors and referees of leading economics journals of the merits of the experimental method. The consequence of this was that, by the early 1990s, experimental economics research became a standard feature of economics journals and of the economics mainstream. I draw on a unique—and, to this date, never utilized—corpus of referee reports (and related correspondence) by Charles Plott, one of the leading pioneers of experimental economics. His publication corpus is used as a case study of how experimental economists sought acceptance in economics journals. I describe a set of nine strategies that he and other early experimental economists used to convince journal editors and referees who had no direct experience with conducting economic experiments of the merits of the experimental method.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract This paper addresses a central question of the experimental turn in economics: how a relatively small group of experimental economists in the 1970s and 1980s managed to convince editors and referees of leading economics journals of the merits of the experimental method. The consequence of this was that, by the early 1990s, experimental economics research became a standard feature of economics journals and of the economics mainstream. I draw on a unique—and, to this date, never utilized—corpus of referee reports (and related correspondence) by Charles Plott, one of the leading pioneers of experimental economics. His publication corpus is used as a case study of how experimental economists sought acceptance in economics journals. I describe a set of nine strategies that he and other early experimental economists used to convince journal editors and referees who had no direct experience with conducting economic experiments of the merits of the experimental method.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract This paper addresses a central question of the experimental turn in economics: how a relatively small group of experimental economists in the 1970s and 1980s managed to convince editors and referees of leading economics journals of the merits of the experimental method. The consequence of this was that, by the early 1990s, experimental economics research became a standard feature of economics journals and of the economics mainstream. I draw on a unique—and, to this date, never utilized—corpus of referee reports (and related correspondence) by Charles Plott, one of the leading pioneers of experimental economics. His publication corpus is used as a case study of how experimental economists sought acceptance in economics journals. I describe a set of nine strategies that he and other early experimental economists used to convince journal editors and referees who had no direct experience with conducting economic experiments of the merits of the experimental method.

Key concepts: Experimental economics, Positive economics, Mainstream economics, Economics education, Schools of economic thought, Economics, Applied economics, Mainstream

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Rejecting rejections—seeking acceptance of experimental economics in economics journals — Research Paper | ScholarLens