Economics Peer-Review: Problems, Recent Developments, and Reform Proposals

Abstract

This article contributes to the debate on reforming the peer-review process in the economics profession. It examines the current state of peer-review in economics, surveys the relevant literature, and identifies several problems and solutions. Problems to be discussed are referee overreach and excessive revisions, strategic refereeing and conflicts of interest, prestige bias and other discrimination, and the noisy outcome of peer-review. It recommends several solutions for reform. First, enforce referee guidelines that referee reports must explicitly separate their suggestions into essential and optional, with 3 essential maximum. Second, let authors award the best referee report. Third, adopt conflict of interest policies for referees and punish non-disclosure. Fourth, use double-blind refereeing. Fifth, make better use of prior reports from other journals. Sixth, pay referees for prompt reports. A discussion of the role of editors highlights additional issues that deserve a debate in the profession.