Doing Economics

part in a small-group dinner in which the editor of a top journal in my field
also took part. Having recently seen a discussion on social media about the
peer-review process, I suggested to the editor that we should put an end to
the anonymity of the peer-review process. He responded by asking me
“Would you be willing to write a fair but critical review of a paper written
by a senior member of the profession and recommend that it be rejected?
How about the same for a paper written by a senior scholar from whom a
letter might be solicited to evaluate your case when you go up for tenure?”
Similar arguments against other would-be “improvements” to the peer-
review process can be made. At the end of the day, the peer-review process
is also like democracy in one other way: You might not like it. You might
not like the outcome of it. But you knew the rules when you decided to
play, and the system is unlikely to change in your lifetime.
That said, by and large, the peer-review process does lead to better
scholarship. Though we all sooner or later have to deal with grumpy
reviewers, most reviewer comments lead to better manuscripts in my
experience, both as an author having published over three dozen peer-
reviewed articles and as an editor having solicited reviews for hundreds of
manuscripts. In recent years, the term “gatekeeping” has acquired a bad
reputation due to its use in reference to some people appointing themselves
as arbiters of who does or does not belong in a given hobby community, and

---

I have seen that term thrown around on social media by academics
complaining about reviews they disagreed with. But academic research is
no hobby (at least not unless you are fortunate enough to be independently
wealthy) and so gatekeeping in the form of peer review is a necessity. This
is especially so in a discipline like economics, wherein research findings
may end up informing public policy, thereby affecting the welfare of
individuals who, more often than not, are from vulnerable populations.