RAE 23 (3) 2010

|Peter Boettke|

 

The new issue of the RAE is out. You can access it online (if your library has a subscription) here.

On another note, the RePC rankings of scientific journals by citation impact was recently made available. 

The RAE has a long way to go to improve in its ranking (355), but there was some surprising comparisons.  The RAE actually ranks higher than the Journal of Economic History (401), AJE&S (544), Review of Social Economy (420), etc.  None of the history of thought journals have much of a citation impact, though the Journal of Economic Methodology (248) does better.   The RAE is the only journal within the Austrian school that makes the list. 

A close look at the top 100 journals listed is revealing. A look at the next 100 is an interesting window into the slightly out of sync cutting edge of economics.

We do really have to do a lot better, but we are moving up.

Comments

[Troy Camplin]

I see that this one is the priate issue. :-) Can't wait to get mine in the mail.

Maybe I'll write something on the spontaneous orders of the arts and submit it to RAE. :-) I already wrote a foundational essay on the topic here:

http://studiesinemergentorder.org/current-issue/sieo3-195/

I have been thinking about explanding on the idea more.

[Peter Boettke]

Yes Troy this is the Pirate issue. But I also think the Prychitko piece on Minsky is very important in the context of the current discourse.

[Daniel Kuehn]

It's interesting - I've never heard any economist speak ill of Minsky - everyone seems to like him. And yet he's still seen as something of a heterodox perspective. I wonder why that is.

[Peter Boettke]

Daniel,

Read Prychitko's piece. It is certainly not speaking ill, but critically assessing his theories.

The Minksy moment came and went in my opinion, and for good reasons. He really doesn't explain what he claims to be explaining, and his "solutions" are not solutions that make any economic sense.

For a counter argument, I suggest looking at the work of the various economists at UMKC. That is probably the school that pays the most attention to Minsky's work.

Pete

[Daniel Kuehn]

Oh good! I will then. And I should say, I haven't read Minsky personally, I'd just heard a lot of very different people speak highly of him. And I was thinking more of his business cycle theory than practical proposals - I'm sure there are more critiques of those.

Ya - I follow the MMT/Post-Keynesian stuff at UMKC as best I can. It can be very strange stuff.

[Hayek]

JEH is 111 by aggregate rank:

http://ideas.repec.org/top/top.journals.all.html

Good that RAE is climbing.

[Peter Boettke]

Dear Hayek (I always wanted to write that):

Thank you. In fact, in that aggregate ranking JEH rises significantly as you point out, and the RAE falls significantly. I would like to know more about what impacts the rankings in the respective rankings. But your point is well taken and I appreciate that you pointed it out as a needed correction.

From a quick reading of the aggregate rank it seems to eliminate some of the more quirky aspects of the simple impact factor measure. So that probably does capture better the situation.

It really shows that the RAE has to keep working hard to rise in the journal rankings and we need to work even harder than we have.

Again, thanks for pointing out the aggregate ranking and if you do know what accounts for the significant shifts, I'd appreciate learning how.

Pete

[Rafael Guthmann]

In the ranking posted by "Hayek", the Review of Austrian Economics, ranked 425, is behind the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, ranked 336. But both journals are nearly equally far from the top journals. That's pretty much expected.

[Peter Boettke]

Rafael,

Again, I would like to understand more about the different measures. In the Simple impact measure RAE ranks 355 and JPKE ranks 300. Why would the RAE fall by 70 spots, and JPKE by 36 spots. Do you have an idea?

On the other hand, the JEH rose significantly from 401 to 111. What is being picked up in the aggregate measure of impact that is lost in the simple impact measure?

Pete

[David Hoopes]

I think RAE could greatly broaden its audience through business schools. I've learned a good deal through reading here, OraganizationsandMarkets, and ThinkMarkets. My guess is there are other economics oriented people trained in management that would benefit and be interested in learning more about Austrian economics. At UCLA (school of management) we were exposed to the Chicago School (I was lucky enough to take classes from Demsetz and Klein), organizational economics, and evolutionary economics. Quite a few people took the first year econ sequences. But, beyond a bit of Hayek here and there there was little Austrian Economic to be had.