Showing posts with label journals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journals. Show all posts

Friday, January 19, 2024

Incentives and mis-incentives in science (Freakonomics part II)

 Freakonomics has a second post on fraud in science, and you can listen or read the transcript here:

Can Academic Fraud Be Stopped?

Two quotes stood out for me:

1. VAZIRE: Oh, I don’t mind being wrong. I think journals should publish things that turn out to be wrong. It would be a bad thing to approach journal editing by saying we’re only going to publish true things or things that we’re 100 percent sure are true. The important thing is that the things that are more likely to be wrong are presented in a more uncertain way. And sometimes we’ll make mistakes even there. Sometimes we’ll present things with certainty that we shouldn’t have. What I would like to be involved in and what I plan to do is to encourage more post-publication critique and correction, reward the whistleblowers who identify errors that are valid and that need to be acted upon, and create more incentives for people to do that, and do that well.

...

2. BAZERMAN: Undoubtedly, I was naive. You know, not only did I trust my colleagues on the signing-first paper, but I think I’ve trusted my colleagues for decades, and hopefully with a good basis for trusting them. I do want to highlight that there are so many benefits of trust. So, the world has done a lot better because we trust science. And the fact that there’s an occasional scientist who we shouldn’t trust should not keep us from gaining the benefit that science creates. And so one of the harms created by the fraudsters is that they give credibility to the science-deniers who are so often keeping us from making progress in society.


############

Earlier:

Sunday, January 14, 2024

Wednesday, January 17, 2024

AEA announces changes in how journals will be produced, financed and distributed

Yesterday's AEA Member Announcements include some substantial changes in how the AEA journals will be produced, distributed, and financed.

The AEA will phase out print journals over the next year by no longer offering print subscriptions for members and institutional subscribers as of February 1.  Existing print subscriptions for members and institutions will be honored through January 2025 but will be unable to be renewed.

In line with most other leading journals, the AEA will end payments to referees for reviews invited on or after February 1.

Collecting publication fees from those benefiting most from the AEA publications program distributes costs of the program more equitably than raising submission fees. With this in mind, the AEA will implement a page charge of $15 per typeset page for published articles submitted after February 1, to be paid by authors, and with provisions to waive the fee under certain circumstances. This page charge will not apply to formally solicited manuscripts (such as Presidential addresses) and will not include articles in the Journal of Economic Literature, Journal of Economic Perspectives, or AEA Papers and Proceedings.   

###########

I wasn't party to these discussions, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone mentioned that per-page charges will feel anachronistic once print journals are no longer produced.  But maybe they will be a mild incentive for brevity (as would per-word charges, which might however inadvertently incentivize sesquipedaleanism).

Wednesday, April 12, 2023

Mega-Journals and scientific publishing

 Academic publishing is getting more varied. A recent article in JAMA focuses on the rise of 'mega-journals,' which seek to publish papers that are correct, without filtering for (referees' opinions about) novelty or importance.

The Rapid Growth of Mega-Journals: Threats and Opportunities  by John P. A. Ioannidis, MD, DSc1,2; Angelo Maria Pezzullo, MD, MSc3; Stefania Boccia, MSc, DSc, PhD3,4, JAMA. Published online March 20, 2023. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.3212

"Mega-journals, those that publish large numbers of articles per year,1 are growing rapidly across science and especially in biomedicine. Although 11 Scopus-indexed journals published more than 2000 biomedical full papers (articles or reviews) in 2015 and accounted for 6% of that year’s literature, in 2022 there were 55 journals publishing more than 2000 full articles, totaling more than 300 000 articles (almost a quarter of the biomedical literature that year). In 2015, 2 biomedical research journals (PLoS One and Scientific Reports) published more than 3500 full articles. In 2022, there were 26 such prolific journals (Table). The accelerating growth of mega-journals creates both threats and opportunities for biomedical science.

...

"we define mega-journals as open-access peer-reviewed journals that charge article processing fees and publish more than 2000 full articles in a calendar year. The 2 early-launched mega-journals, PLoS One and Scientific Reports, were also characterized by very broad publishing scope, covering scientific topics in general. 

...

"Mega-journals typically claim to publish articles based on whether they are scientifically sound rather than important and novel. Accordingly, their acceptance rates, when disclosed, are 20% to 70%

...

"It would be unfair, nevertheless, to dismiss mega-journals as simply a negative development. Several of their characteristics could be aligned also with desirable scientific practices. First, open access is a good starting point, and it can be coupled with greater transparency. If these journals routinely adopt transparent research practices, such as sharing of data, code, protocols, and statistical analysis plans, they can have a transformative effect, given their large output. Several older, broad-scope mega-journals (eg, PLoS One, Royal Society Open Science) have already championed such efforts. It is crucial that disciplinary-focused mega-journals do the same. Second, publishing technically sound scientific work regardless of the nature of the results is highly commendable. It offers opportunities to curb publication and selective reporting bias. Empirical studies are needed to investigate whether mega-journals do achieve this goal or still have selective reporting biases and variants thereof (eg, “spin”). Third, mega-journals may allow publication of results deemed undesirable in traditional specialty journals with entrenched, inbred publishing practices. Enhanced diversity of perspectives and opportunities to challenge orthodoxy are welcome, provided the journals publish rigorous data and safeguard against conflicts of interest. Securing editorial independence and maximizing transparency about conflicts for editors, reviewers, and authors will be key in reaping such benefits.

...

"At the publisher level, competition may have major indirect effects on medicine and science at large. Scientific publishing has an annual work cycle exceeding $30 billion and very large profit margins, which are possible in part because approximately 100 million hours of peer reviewers’ time is offered free yearly.8 The publishers behind the new generation of specialized mega-journals (Table) are taking this money-making recipe to new heights. Science and scientists may feel thwarted, if not entirely powerless, while big publishing corporations fight for field domination. However, it would be to the benefit of all if scientists, medical and research institutions, and funders gave credit to and rewarded journals (and publishers) that promote more transparent research and more rigorous research practices."

Friday, May 21, 2021

Journal of controversial ideas

  Some ideas are controversial not just because some people think they are bad ideas, but because they think that they are the kinds of ideas that only bad people have.  So writing about them, let alone advocating them, may have reputational costs.  Here's a new (open access) journal that offers authors the option of publishing under a pseudonym if they wish, to avoid the harassment, hate mail and death threats that would otherwise come their way.

Journal of controversial ideas

"The Journal of Controversial Ideas offers a forum for careful, rigorous, unpolemical discussion of issues that are widely considered controversial, in the sense that certain views about them might be regarded by many people as morally, socially, or ideologically objectionable or offensive. The journal offers authors the option to publish their articles under a pseudonym, in order to protect themselves from threats to their careers or physical safety.  We hope that this will also encourage readers to attend to the arguments and evidence in an essay rather than to who wrote it. Pseudonymous authors may choose to claim the authorship of their work at a later time, or to reveal it only to selected people (such as employers or prospective employers), or to keep their identity undisclosed indefinitely. Standard submissions using the authors’ actual names are also encouraged."

Editors: 

Jeff McMahan (White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy, University of Oxford, UK)

Francesca Minerva (Researcher, University of Milan)

Peter Singer (Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University, USA)

And Here's the first issue, with several pseudonymous contributions.

Peter Singer discusses the journal at Project Syndicate:

Keeping Discussion Free

"A new academic journal permits authors to use a pseudonym to avoid running the risk of receiving personal abuse, including death threats, or of irrevocably harming their careers. That option has become necessary even in countries that we do not think of as repressive dictatorships."


Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Market design in Management Science (the journal)

The journal Management Science is open to market design papers in at least two of its departments. Gabriel Weintraub alerts me to the following announcement:

Revenue Management and Market Analytics Department in Management Science

It begins:

Dear MD colleagues:

We wrote the blog below about this new department in Management Science. Part of the mission of the department is related to “market analytics”, which has a significant market design component. We have been receiving several strong market design papers from economists and from other disciplines but would like to see more, so we are sharing this here. 

We look forward to receiving your work!

Best,

Gabriel Weintraub
Associate Professor
Stanford GSB

Sunday, February 4, 2018

Changing of the guard at Management Science (but papers on market design are solicited)

Here's an email announcement from Yan Chen and Axel Ockenfels about the recent change of editors at Management Science:

"We would like to update you on some recent development regarding behavioral economics at Management Science. As you may have heard, the new Editor-in-Chief, David Simchi-Levi, has decided to merge behavioral economics, judgment and decision making, and decision analysis into the newly expanded Decision Analysis Department (DA). The two of us will be the Department Editors handling behavioral economics papers within DA.

We have a terrific group of Associate Editors (AEs), including Al Roth and Richard Thaler who serve as our honorary AEs, and Björn Bartling (University of Zurich), Gary Bolton (University of Texas at Dallas), Peter Cramton (University of Cologne), Dan Friedman (University of California at Santa Cruz), Tanjim Hossain (University of Toronto), Scott Kominers (Harvard University), Dorothea Kübler (Berlin Social Science Center WZB), Katherine Milkman (University of Pennsylvania), Tanya Rosenblat (University of Michigan), Dirk Sliwka (University of Cologne), Matthias Sutter (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn), and Stephanie W. Wang (University of Pittsburgh).

We hope that you will continue to submit your best papers to Management Science. Please
​​
, and note the new emphasis on (1) mechanism and market design at DA; and (2) relevance to the science and/or practice of management at the journal level.

In closing, we would like to thank Uri Gneezy and John List for bringing behavioral economics into Management Science. We hope to continue their excellent work and publish the best papers in our field.

Sincerely,
Yan ​​and Axel
--
Yan Chen

Friday, December 1, 2017

New AEA Journal--American Economic Review: Insights

The American Economic Society announces a new journal today: American Economic Review: Insights

Here's the call for papers:

The newest journal of the American Economic Association, American Economic Review: Insights, invites submissions.

Editor

Amy Finkelstein, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Coeditors

Pete Klenow, Stanford University
Larry Samuelson, Yale University

Board of Editors

Alberto Abadie, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Andrew Atkeson, University of California, Los Angeles
Markus K. Brunnermeier, Princeton University
Eric Budish, University of Chicago
Pascaline Dupas, Stanford University
Paul J. Healy, Ohio State University
Nathaniel Hendren, Harvard University
Hilary Hoynes, University of California, Berkeley
Navin Kartik, Columbia University
Ted O'Donoghue, Cornell University
Andrés Rodríguez-Clare, University of California, Berkeley
Jesse Shapiro, Brown University
Andrzej Skrzypacz, Stanford University
Jón Steinsson, Columbia University
AER: Insights is designed to be a top-tier, general-interest economics journal publishing papers of the same quality and importance as those in the AER, but devoted to publishing papers with important insights that can be conveyed succinctly.

Papers in economics have grown substantially in length over the last four decades, leaving little scope to publish the important paper whose central contribution can be concisely presented. Yet, sometimes the most important findings are those that require little room. Paul Samuelson's landmark paper on the efficient provision of public goods was only three pages in the 1954 Review of Economics and Statistics. Further afield from economics, Watson and Crick's discovery of the Double Helix was presented in less than two pages in the 1953 Nature.

AER: Insights will target the turnaround times of the most efficient journals in our profession––with an aim to get all first responses within three months at most. More novelly, first responses will be either a reject or a "conditional accept," with no lengthy responses to referees required nor a second round of comments from referees on the revision. The Editor's requests with a conditional accept will be limited to expositional changes only; to self-enforce this norm, editors will ask for revisions back from the authors within eight weeks. Short papers. Short revisions.

Submissions must be <=6,000 words and have a maximum of five exhibits (figures or tables). The word count is based on the main text, including footnotes but excluding references, title, author names, abstract, the acknowledgement footnote, exhibit notes, keywords, and JEL codes. For reference, in Microsoft Word, 6,000 words is about 15 double-spaced pages of text using 11 point Times New Roman font and 1 inch margins and with additional pages for exhibits and references. As another point of reference, 6,000 words of text is about one-third the length of a typical AER article in recent years. The abstract should be <= 100 words.

Length limits on submissions and revisions will be strictly enforced. Online appendix materials are allowed (of unlimited length); but if referees or the Editor do not feel able to evaluate the essential elements of the paper from the main text alone, that will be grounds for rejection.

The aim of AER: Insights is to provide a high quality outlet for important yet concise contributions to economics, both empirical and theoretical.

To view the full Submission Guidelines for AER: Insights, please visit https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/aeri/submissions. To submit your paper, please go to https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aer-insights. Please contact Managing Editor, Kelly Markel (k.markel@aeapubs.org), with any questions.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, vol 1, number 1 2016

The first issue of the Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design is now online here: http://www.mechanism-design.org/arch/v001-1/jMID-vol1(1)-01.pdf

Sunday, August 30, 2015

A new journal for market design

Peter Biro brings to my attention the announcement of a new journal that seems to be focused at least partly on market design.  The journal's website and some of the editors (although not the ones I know) are associated with the University of York's Centre for Mechanism and Institution Design, which lists among its interests many areas in which elegant theory has led to practical design. I don't know more about the journal yet, and not all of the links work, but the composition of the Editorial Board suggests that it may have a chance of becoming an important journal, particularly if they have a plan for attracting good papers...

Here's the announcement...
Design Mechanisms and Institutions that Improve Efficiency, Equality, Prosperity, Stability and Sustainability in Society.

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Call for papers: special issue on Matching in honor of Marilda Sotomayor, in Journal of Dynamics and Games

This call for papers arrived yesterday by email:

Call for Papers


Journal of Dynamics and Games is pleased to invite paper submissions for  
Matching : Theory and Applications,
a Special Issue dedicated to Marilda Sotomayor on the occasion of her 70th birthday.

Marilda Sotomayor is a foundational figure in the development of matching theory and applications in economics with seminal contributions on the structural, game theoretic and mechanism design aspects of the basic model and its extensions. Her volume, Two-Sided Matching (1992), co-authored with 2012 Nobel laureate Roth is the singular textbook in the area, which was awarded the prestigious Frederick W. Lanchester Prize. 

Papers are welcome on all aspects of matching games and markets, theoretical as well as applied, including the analysis and design of institutions or marketplaces, e.g. for jobs or school choice, for houses or organ exchange.  

Please submit your paper directly to one of the invited editors using their email.

Invited Editors:
Ahmet Alkan
Sabancı University, Turkey
Jesús David Pérez Castrillo
Myrna Wooders
Vanderbilt University, USA
Email: myrna.wooders@vanderbilt.edu
John Wooders


Submissions deadline: 28 of  February 2015.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Citation collaboration

"Impact factors" have become important to journals, and efforts to manipulate them come to light from time to time. Here's a Brazilian story from the journal Nature: Brazilian citation scheme outed
Thomson Reuters suspends journals from its rankings for ‘citation stacking’.

"Mauricio Rocha-e-Silva thought that he had spotted an easy way to raise the profiles of Brazilian journals. From 2009, he and several other editors published articles containing hundreds of references to papers in each others’ journals — in order, he says, to elevate the journals’ impact factors.

"Because each article avoided citing papers published by its own journal, the agreement flew under the radar of analyses that spot extremes in self-citation — until 19 June, when the pattern was discovered. Thomson Reuters, the firm that calculates and publishes the impact factor, revealed that it had designed a program to spot concentrated bursts of citations from one journal to another, a practice that it has dubbed ‘citation stacking’. Four Brazilian journals were among 14 to have their impact factors suspended for a year for such stacking. And in July, Rocha-e-Silva was fired from his position as editor of one of them, the journal Clinics, based in São Paulo."

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Double blind reviewing

"Double blind reviewing" is the practice in some academic journals of not only concealing the reviewers' identities from the authors, but of also concealing the authors' identities from the reviewers. The idea is that papers should be evaluated "on their own merits," without information about the authors. The controversies that arise have to do with whether there is valuable information in knowing who the authors are.  For a number of years the American Economic Review tried to have double blind reviewing (that was somewhat undermined by the growing ease of finding papers on the internet), but they abandoned this practice a few years ago.

I was reminded of this by the story of J.K. Rowling's (of Harry Potter fame) venture into publishing a story under a pseudonym, later revealed...

‘Cuckoo’s Calling’ Reveals Long Odds for New Authors

"“The Cuckoo’s Calling” became the publishing sensation of the summer when word leaked that its first-time author, Robert Galbraith, was none other than J. K. Rowling, the mega-best-selling creator of Harry Potter.

"Mystery solved? Maybe not. It’s no surprise that “The Cuckoo’s Calling,” a detective story set in a London populated by supermodels and rock stars, shot to the top of best-seller lists once the identity of the author was revealed. But if the book is as good as critics are now saying it is, why didn’t it sell more copies before, especially since the rise of online publishing has supposedly made it easier than ever for first-time authors?"

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

a pre-emptive letter of rejection from one of my favorite journals, Games and Economic Behavior

Along with what I presume are very many other people, I recently received this email from the editors of Games and Economic Behavior (GEB). The first part of the email (reproduced below) reads a lot like the rejection letters I get, and says that only papers of very broad general interest can be accepted (and not papers that are of interest to only some readers..).  But in this case the letter is being sent to people before they submit a paper. (The second part of the email sensibly encourages editors and referees to reject things quickly, at least, and use early desk rejections, so that people will still be willing to submit to a journal that is likely to reject their paper...)

"Dear GEB colleagues,

"We are writing to update you on the state of the journal, remind you of GEB's objective, ask for your help, and thank you for your contributions.

"Journals that publish papers in game theory
Currently, there are six journals devoted entirely to publishing game theory papers:
1. Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier
2. International Journal of Game Theory, Springer
3. International Game Theory Review, World Scientific
4. International Journal of Mathematics, Game Theory and Algebra, Nova Publishers
5. Journal of Game Theory, Scientific & Academic Publishing - Open Access (Peer Review) 
6. Games, MDPI - Open Access (Peer Review) 

"In addition, most economic theory journals publish game theory papers and there is a fast growing number of game theory papers published in computer science and operations research journals. For example, one of the four sections of Mathematics of Operations Research is devoted entirely to game theory and ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation is heavily concentrated on game theory. 

"The unique role of GEB
The stated goal of GEB is to "facilitate cross-fertilization between theories and applications of game theoretic reasoning." With the expansion of game theory into a variety of subjects beyond economics (computer science, operations research and management, biology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, philosophy), it is important to communicate and coordinate game-theoretic research across these fields. To be effective in this mission, it is important to restrict publications in GEB to papers that are of general game theoretic interest (in a broad sense) and not to publish papers that are of interest only to narrow groups, even if they are high quality. With the current rate of more than 700 new submissions a year, this means that GEB has to maintain a high rate of rejection. The current rate of rejection is approximately five out of six newly submitted papers."


Saturday, January 26, 2013

Repugnant organization of academic journals?

A new mathematics journal is raising questions about whether it might be promoting repugnant transactions. Timothy Gowers, one of the editors of Forum of Mathematics, CUP’s new open-access journal has a blog post called Why I've joined the bad guys, in which he discusses the fact that the journal will fund itself by charging the authors of articles.

He begins as follows:

"If you are not already familiar with this debate, the aspect of Forum of Mathematics that many people dislike is that it will be funded by means of article processing charges (which I shall abbreviate to APCs) rather than subscriptions. For the next three years, these charges will be waived, but after that there will be a charge of £500 per article. Let me now consider a number of objections that people have to APCs.

"It is just plain wrong to ask authors to pay to get their articles published.
There are many variants of this argument. For instance, an analogy is often drawn with vanity publishing: do we want vanity publishing for mathematical articles?

"Let me begin with the “it is just plain wrong” part. A number of people have said that they find APCs morally repugnant. However, that on its own is not an argument. "


HT: Will Dearden

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

What is the place of Economics in Science?

The AAAS, which publishes Science magazine, has elected a new list of Fellows, 701 in all this year, including several economists (among whom I am one, which is what brought it to my attention):

Section on Social, Economic and Political Sciences
  • Howard E. AldrichUniv. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • Nicole Woolsey BiggartUniv. of California, Davis
  • Herbert GintisCentral European Univ., Hungary
  • Randy HodsonOhio State Univ.
  • Edward Paul LazearStanford Univ.
  • Deirdre McCloskeyUniv. of Illinois at Chicago
  • Melvin L. OliverUniv. of California, Santa Barbara
  • Zhenchao QianOhio State Univ.
  • Alvin E. RothHarvard Univ.
  • John SkvoretzUniv. of South Florida
  • Richard Michael SuzmanNational Institute on Aging/NIH
I am a long-time subscriber to Science, but not for it's publications in Economics. So I was interested to note that the new Economics Fellows aren't in a section devoted to Economics, but rather one that is apparently devoted to Sociology, Economics, and Political Science.

That doesn't seem like an unnatural grouping, except for the fact that the other Sections seem to concentrate much more narrowly. Here's the list of all 24 Sections:

AAAS Sections
The 24 sections arrange symposia for the Annual Meeting, elect officers, and provide expertise for Association-wide projects.
For a listing of section officers, click on the sections below.
Agriculture, Food, and Renewable Resources (Section O)
Anthropology (Section H)
Astronomy (Section D)
Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences (Section W)
Visit the AAAS Section W Web site
Biological Sciences (Section G)
Visit the AAAS Section G Web site.
Chemistry (Section C)
Dentistry and Oral Health Sciences (Section R)
Education (Section Q)
Engineering (Section M)
General Interest in Science and Engineering (Section Y)
Geology and Geography (Section E)
History and Philosophy of Science (Section L)
Visit the AAAS Section L Web site
Industrial Science and Technology (Section P)
Information, Computing, and Communication (Section T)
Linguistics and Language Science (Section Z)
Mathematics (Section A)
Medical Sciences (Section N)
Neuroscience (Section V)
Pharmaceutical Sciences (Section S)
Physics (Section B)
Visit the AAAS Section B Web site
Psychology (Section J)
Social, Economic, and Political Sciences (Section K)
Societal Impacts of Science and Engineering (Section X)
Statistics (Section U)
I'm reminded of the quote by Keynes:"If economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people on a level with dentists, that would be splendid. " Looking at the list (Dentists have almost their own Section), I can see that we have a way to go, at least in the AAAS and Science.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Law review submissions: too cheap?

It has always been the custom to submit papers to multiple law reviews, but the new ExpressO system makes it so easy that some journals are no longer accepting papers from it. Dan Filler at the Faculty Lounge write: Is Now the Moment to Re-jigger the Law Review Submission Process?

"As I noted here, the University of Chicago Law Review and California Law Review are no longer accepting submissions from ExpressO.  They now accept articles submitted for five dollars a pop via Scholastica.  The Stanford Law Review and Yale Law Journal only accept pieces submitted through their proprietary submission systems.  The anachronistic law review publication system has always been problematic - both because law students with limited knowledge make the big decisions and because, given multiple submissions and an expedite bid system, those student editors are asked to read vastlymore articles than they are ever going to have a shot at publishing. (Of course the two are related; you could never find enough faculty volunteers to referee one article seventy-five times per submission season.  And efforts to create a referee bank - like this - have had limited success.)
I strongly suspect that the volume generated by the low-cost convenience of ExpressO might literally be breaking this camel's back. If ever there was a time to get journals on board for some sort of rationalization, it might be now.  "

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Call for Papers: "Special Issue on Matching under Preferences" - Algorithms

Mike Ostrovsky forwards me this announcement he received by email:

Call for Papers: Special Issue: "Special Issue on Matching under Preferences" - Algorithms (ISSN 1999-4893)


The following Special Issue will be published in Algorithms (http://www.mdpi.com/journal/algorithms/, ISSN 1999-4893), and is now open to receive submissions of full research papers and comprehensive review articles for peer-review and possible publication:

Special Issue: Special Issue on Matching under Preferences
Guest Editors: Dr. David Manlove and Dr. Péter Biró Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 December 2012

Article Processing Charges are waived for well prepared manuscripts in this Special Issue.

You may send your manuscript now or up until the deadline.
Submitted papers should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere. We also encourage authors to send us their tentative title and short abstract by e-mail for approval to the Editorial Office at algorithms@mdpi.com.

This Special Issue will be fully open access. Open access (unlimited and free access by readers) increases publicity and promotes more frequent citations as indicated by several studies.
More information is available at http://www.mdpi.com/about/openaccess/.

Algorithms (ISSN 1999-4893) is an open access journal of computer science, theory, methods and interdisciplinary applications, data and information systems, software engineering, artificial intelligence, automation and control systems, is published online quarterly by MDPI. It maintains a rigorous and fast peer-review system and accepted papers are immediately published online. Because it is an online and open access journal, papers published in Algorithms will receive high publicity.

Please visit the website of Instructions for Authors before submitting a paper at http://www.mdpi.com/journal/algorithms/instructions/.
Manuscripts should be submitted through the online manuscript submission and editorial system at http://www.mdpi.com/user/manuscripts/upload/.

MDPI publishes several peer-reviewed, open access journals listed at http://www.mdpi.com/. The Editorial Board members, including several Nobel Laureates (http://www.mdpi.com/about/nobelists/), are all leading active scholars. All MDPI journals maintain rapid, yet rigorous, peer- review, manuscript handling and editorial processes. MDPI journals have increased their impact factors, see "2011 Newly Released Impact Factors", http://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/235/.

In case of questions, please contact the Editorial Office at:

We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,
Chelly Cheng

On behalf of the Guest Editors

Dr. David Manlove
School of Computing Science
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QQ
UK
Website:http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~davidm/
E-Mail:David.Manlove@glasgow.ac.uk

and

Dr. Péter Biró
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Economics, Budapest
1112 Budaörsi út. 45.
Hungary

--
Algorithms Editorial Office
MDPI AG
Kandererstrasse 25
CH-4057 Basel, Switzerland
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
Fax: +41 61 302 89 18

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Game theory in Operations Research


The venerable journal Operations Research has a new subject area, with distinguished area editors:

David Gamarnik and Asu Ozdaglar, editors

Networks have become pervasive in every aspect of our lives and have emerged as a crucial tool for understanding the world we live in. The World Wide Web, which links us to and enables information flows with the rest of the world, is the most visible example. Physical networks play a similarly vital role in wireless communication, data transmission, and energy production and distribution. Equally central are social and economic networks that shape opinions, information flows, and transactions. A fundamental understanding of network behavior, including the nature of interconnections, issues of stability, and decision making place operations research methodology at the core of this emerging research program.
We invite high-quality submissions that advance the theory and application of operations research methods, including graph theory and optimization, economic analysis, game theory, and stochastic models, in the emerging field of network science. In addition to works contributing to the analysis of networks, we also encourage submissions using tools and concepts from network analysis in other application domains.
Associate Editors: Mung Chiang, Ayalvadi Ganesh, Ali Jadbabaie, Ramesh Johari, Andrea Montanari, Yannis Paschalidis, Devavrat Shah, Sanjay Shakkottai, and Adam Wierman

I'm hopeful that this may mark a return to a high level of interaction between game theorists and the operations research community. (Market design seems like an area that is ripe for this kind of interaction.)

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Academic publication: design of the market for (scholarly) ideas

Some new additions to the venerable discussion of how to organize academic journals and other outlets for (peer reviewed) ideas.

Noam Nisan reflects on The problem with journals, following a post by Tim Gowers, How might we get to a new model of mathematical publishing?

HT: László Sándor on google+