Peer-reviewed journals still top gauge for research impact

Smaller teams more likely to consider conference presentations as assessment tool

Peer-reviewed publications remain central banks’ top metric for assessing research success, the Economics Benchmarks 2024 find.

Central Banking asked respondents to score each assessment tool from 1–5. The scale denotes a score of one as low importance, while five indicates top importance.

Publications in peer-reviewed journals received the highest average score of 4.4. Number of working papers averages four. The yardstick economists scored lowest in is number of revise and resubmit requests

Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.

To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@centralbanking.com or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.centralbanking.com/subscribe

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@centralbanking.com to find out more.

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to Central Banking? View our subscription options

Most read articles loading...

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Central Banking account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account

.