Journal publication in economics: a view from the periphery
指出边缘领域（如发展经济学）的经济学家，尤其是早期职业学者，在主流期刊发表研究成果时面临特殊困难，形成恶性循环，可能损害学科发展。
In this paper we point to special problems faced by economists in 'peripheral' fields (like development economics), particularly those at early stages of their career, in publishing their research results in mainline journals, and how this creates a kind of vicious circle that may be damaging to our profession. Given the supreme importance of publication in journals for advancement in our profession it is not surprising that a fair amount of attention has been paid to analysing its patterns and trends.' The purpose of this short paper is to point to some specific problems faced by economists who write not primarily in the areas of mainstream concern in economics, but in the somewhat peripheral fields (like development, history, urban economics, etc.). These problems are largely neglected in the general analysis of journal publication. Having myself toiled for many years in the field of development economics, guided many young students in that field and edited one of the main field journals, I may have acquired over the years some understanding of the problems that economists in such peripheral fields, particularly those who are not yet established or tenured, face in the highly competitive world of journal publication. While many of my examples will be drawn from this field, I understand that some of the other fields have also encountered similar problems. I am writing this in the hope that some general awareness of these problems may enhance the quality of competition and productivity in this market and broaden the range of our professional priorities and concerns. Let me start with what many young economists in these peripheral fields will describe to you as a Catch-22. When they submit their papers to the mainline journals, they are often sent back (sometimes without a review, or with a cursory one) with the advice that they should try a field journal instead; and yet at tenure time the tenure committee is prone to count the number of papers in mainline journals. I know of cases where tenure has been denied to candidates with a fair number of splendid articles in field journals but a paucity of articles in the top three or four mainline journals (of course, not for their lack of trying) and at the time of denial they have sometimes been explicitly told so.