Tag Archives: surveys

Publication cultures in economic, business and financial history: Comparing apples and oranges?

1.)Quantifying the heterogeneity of publication cultures in economic, business and financial history


by Eline Poelmans and Sandra Rousseau, Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, campus Brussels



Researchers working in the interdisciplinary field of ‘economic, business and financial history’ come from at least two different disciplinary backgrounds, namely history and economics. These two backgrounds may lead to differences in research practices, as there are potentially other demands for tenure and promotion requirements. We performed a survey to assess whether there is heterogeneity in the submission and publication culture (i.e. one multi-faceted culture, or simply multiple cultures) between respondents working in an economics versus a history department. Among other things, we found differences in their motivation for publishing, the type of publications they aim for, and their journal selection strategies. Our results show that the department the respondents work at—irrespective of their disciplinary focus and background—determines most of their research and publication decisions. Hence working successfully in an interdisciplinary field or working in a department different from the main field of research requires researchers to learn the (in)formal rules and practices of an unfamiliar field.

Published on: Essays in Economic & Business History (2016) Volume XXXIV pp. 95-135.

URL: http://www.ebhsoc.org/journal/index.php/journal/issue/current


2.)Factors determining authors’ willingness to wait for editorial decisions from economic history journals


by Eline Poelmans and Sandra Rousseau, Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, campus Brussels



In this contribution, we measure how long researchers are willing to wait (WTW) for an editorial decision on the acceptance or rejection of a submitted manuscript. This measure serves as a proxy for the expected value of a publication to a researcher in the field of economic, business and financial history. We analyze how this WTW measure varies with the characteristics of the submitting authors themselves. We distinguish the impact of personal characteristics (including age, gender and geographic location) as well as work-related characteristics (including research discipline, affiliation and academic position). To identify the factors determining economic history authors’ WTW for editorial decisions, we use a valuation technique known as stated choice experiments. Our results show that respondents found the standing of the journal to be at least as important as its ISI impact factor. Moreover, we find differences in publication culture between economic and history departments. Overall, researchers’ willingness to wait is influenced to a greater extent by the research discipline in which the respondents are active (history vs. economics), than by their personal characteristics (e.g. the education or the type of Ph.D. they obtained).

Published on: Scientometrics (2015) 102: pp. 1347–1374

DOI 10.1007/s11192-014-1469-2

URL https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276234589_Factors_determining_authors

Summarised by Eline Poelmans and Sandra Rousseau


When authors choose a journal to submit a manuscript, the submission process is influenced by several author and journal characteristics. Also time pressure is an influencing factor, since academic job offers, promotions and tenure decisions tend to be based on researchers’ publication and citation records. Hence, both journal editors and prospective authors want to reduce the time between the initial submission and the final editorial decision.

Moreover, within interdisciplinary fields – such as the field of ‘economic, business and financial history’, a field at the intersection of two major social sciences – there can be large differences in both research attitudes, skills, focus and practices depending on the different backgrounds of researchers (such as having a PhD in history or in economics) as well as varying requirements for tenure, promotion or funding in the different departments the researchers are working (such as the department of history versus that of economics) that can also influence an author’s submission and publication decisions.


In the first paper, the authors conducted a survey to investigate whether working in the interdisciplinary field ‘economic history’ implies an additional challenge to the researcher in this field compared to those working in a more homogeneous field. The authors used data in order to quantify this heterogeneity (or ‘duality’) of the publication culture in economic history by investigating the impact of the disciplinary focus of researchers’ doctoral dissertation and current affiliation (history, economics or other) on respondents’ submission and publication behavior: their preferred publication outlets, their reasons for publishing, and their journal selection strategies.


In the second paper, the authors assessed the impact of time constraints on the submitting author’s willingness to wait (WTW) for a publication in a journal with specific characteristics in the field of economic history and they analyzed whether and how this WTW measure varied with journal and personal characteristics. They studied the main effects of the different journal characteristics on the willingness-to-wait for a publication, as well as the interaction effects with the respondents’ characteristics to estimate the different values researchers attach to publications with particular characteristics in this field.


The first paper shows that the department the respondents work at determines most of their research and publication decisions. Hence, working in an interdisciplinary field such as economic history clearly comes at a cost: researchers with a PhD in one discipline who work in a department of another discipline may have to change their research and publication behavior significantly in order to obtain tenure or get promoted. These insights imply that it is inappropriate to use a strategy based on the conventions of a single discipline to evaluate researchers in a multidisciplinary field since it is unlikely that ‘one size fits all.’


The second paper found that respondents’ decisions on manuscript submission were dependent on specific journal characteristics, such as ISI impact factor and standing. Moreover, the respondents’ institution type with which they were affiliated (history versus economics) influenced the respondent’s willingness to wait to a greater extent than their personal characteristics (such as the type of Ph.D. they obtained).


Hence, as requirements with regard to tenure and promotion often differ between departments and disciplines, it is important to develop measurement methods to hire and evaluate researchers working in an interdisciplinary field that have obtained a PhD in one field (such as (economic) history) and end up in an economics department, and vice versa. In this respect it is important to develop and use multidisciplinary assessment strategies to evaluate the quality of researchers in a multidisciplinary field. For instance, it may be advisable to include researchers from both disciplinary backgrounds in selection committees.

Possibilities for future research

Obtaining a larger data set with more respondents can improve the paper. Moreover, checking whether (and making sure that) the dataset is representative for the discipline would be useful (e.g. the division male/female, the share of American, European, Asian, … researchers in this specific field, the share of people with a PhD in economics versus a PhD in history that work in the field of economic history, the division of permanent versus temporary contracts, etc…).

With regard to future research attaining more PhD students would be useful to see whether their research decisions are already formed during their PhD by the publication culture of the department they work at. It is also interesting to analyze whether there is a difference if the PhD student is conducting his PhD on an independent (governmental) scholarship.

A more in-depth analysis about how the researchers perceive the advantages and disadvantages of working in an interdisciplinary environment as well as measuring attitudes and opinions through multidimensional scales can improve insight into the challenges and rewards of performing interdisciplinary research. By identifying drivers and barriers to interdisciplinary research in the field of economic history – for instance by using the framework developed by Siedlok and Hibbert (2014) – advice for research institutions, funding agencies and policy makers could be formulated.


Moreover, the results of these papers only apply to researchers active in the field of economic history. Thus, it would be interesting for future research to investigate whether these findings could be generalized to other (interdisciplinary) fields, such as law and economics or environmental economics.

Stated choice experiments could, for instance, be used to investigate the relative importance of factors influencing the decision to collaborate with a particular type of researcher (gender, rank, national or international) or research institution. They could also help in identifying classes of researchers that show similar collaborative behavior. Moreover, choice experiments could help in analyzing decisions to fund particular projects or to hire particular researchers. Further, they could also be useful in comparing authors’ citation behavior: such as studying the relative importance of different articles’ characteristics (such as familiarity with the authors, standing of the journal, time of publication, content fit, innovativeness, etc.) in the decision to cite a particular source in a text. Finally, choice experiments can be used to analyze the editors’ decision in matching referees with submitted manuscripts, depending on characteristics, such as specialization, maturity and past experience with a particular referee.

Finally, the crisis of 2007 showed that the knowledge of historical facts could maybe not have prevented the crisis, but at least have made the banks more cautious in their decision making process. However, so far, interdisciplinary research – such as economic, financial and business history – is unfortunately still considered by the academic world as a ‘side business’, most often not really belonging to a department, but as a research field floating somewhere in between economics and history. As long as the demands for tenure and the promotion requirements in different departments differ, researchers will be guided in their motivation to work on certain topics by these external evaluation criteria, instead of by the interest of historical facts that need to be researched in order to learn lessons for the future.

Given the value of interdisciplinary research in tackling complex real-life problems, it is important to understand the dynamics of such interdisciplinary research fields. Thus it is interesting to study the formal and informal sets of rules that guide the selection of research topics, collaborations, funding decisions and publication behavior. Such empirical – and repeated – studies allow us to identify positive and negative trends and provide the opportunity to react in a timely manner so that interdisciplinary research is – and continues to be – rewarding for researchers.


Additional References

Siedlok, F. and Hibbert, P., 2014. The organization of interdisciplinary research: modes, drivers and barriers. International Journal of Management Reviews16(2), pp.194-210.

To Get Published or Not to Get Published: Challenges and Opportunities in Economics from 1970 to Present.

Nine Facts about Top Journals in Economics

David Card (University of California, Berkeley) (card@econ.berkeley.edu)

Stefano della Vigna (University of California, Berkeley) (sdellavi@econ.berkeley.edu)


How has publishing in top economics journals changed since 1970? Using a data set that combines information on all articles published in the top-5 journals from 1970 to 2012 with their Google Scholar citations, we identify nine key trends. First, annual submissions to the top-5 journals nearly doubled from 1990 to 2012. Second, the total number of articles published in these journals actually declined from 400 per year in the late 1970s to 300 per year most recently. As a result, the acceptance rate has fallen from 15% to 6%, with potential implications for the career progression of young scholars. Third, one journal, the American Economic Review, now accounts for 40% of top-5 publications, up from 25% in the 1970s. Fourth, recently published papers are on average 3 times longer than they were in the 1970s, contributing to the relative shortage of journal space. Fifth, the number of authors per paper has increased from 1.3 in 1970 to 2.3 in 2012, partly offsetting the fall in the number of articles per year. Sixth, citations for top-5 publications are high: among papers published in the late 1990s, the median number of Google Scholar citations is 200. Seventh, the ranking of journals by citations has remained relatively stable, with the notable exception of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which climbed from fourth place to first place over the past three decades. Eighth, citation counts are significantly higher for longer papers and those written by more co-authors. Ninth, although the fraction of articles from different fields published in the top-5 has remained relatively stable, there are important cohort trends in the citations received by papers from different fields, with rising citations to more recent papers in Development and International, and declining citations to recent papers in Econometrics and Theory.

Keywords: Publications, Top-5 Journals, Economics

URL http://www.nber.org/papers/w18665.pdf

Review by Anna Missiaia

This working paper was distributed by nep-his on 2013-01-12 and contains some information that might be of use to academics engaged in economics related disciplines. In particular, it should be read by young and mid-career academics whose future is still highly dependent on the number of their publications and the ranking of the journals where they publish. This survey by David Card and Stefano della Vigna, both from the Department of Economics of UC Barkeley, provides several facts and comments about articles published in top economics journals from 1970 to today.

The paper considers the top-5 economics journals, namely the American Economic Review (AER), Econometrica (EMA), the Journal of Political Economy (JPE), the Quarterly Journal of Economics (QJE), and the Review of Economic Studies (RES). All the articles published between 1970 and 2012 have been tracked looking at the number of authors, the length of the article and the number of citations. The number of submissions to each journal from 1990 onwards has been collected as well in order to compute acceptance rates.  The first two facts that emerge from this article are that the number of submissions per year almost doubled between 1990 and 2012 and that of articles published declined from 400per year to 300 per year. These first two facts will appear particularly grim to those who are in the early stages of their academic career, as they boil down to a decrease of acceptance rate from 16% to 6% today. However, this tendency is contrasted by a rise of the average number of co-authors from 1.3 to 2.3 in the same period. Finally, the length of the articles has increased three-fold from 1970 to today.

David Card – Class of 1950 Professor of Economics (UC Berkeley)

These first three facts are worth to be analysed together. It is the opinion of card and Della Vigna that the increase of the number of co-authors is a response to the more restrictive policy by journals on publication. The reason for teaming-up is that publications with one or multiple authors have the same weight in terms of career. Therefore, if acceptance rate decreased, the number of papers authored by each scholar has decreased less than that. The dramatic increase of the length of articles is interpreted by the authors as an improvement in the quality of research, which is due to both more selectivity and to joint work of scholars. Moving to the citations front, the readers will be glad to hear that whenever they will manage to get published on a top-5 journal,  this will make them extremely popular, although it will take a while. Papers published today have a lower number of citations compared to the ones published in the in the 1990s, which reminds us that it takes years to accumulate citations. However, if you compare the papers published in the 1970s to those of the 1990s, they have fewer citations. This is probably  a sign of the quality increase in papers that we have seen from the 1990s onwards. The ranking of journals in terms of citations has been fairly stable over the past decades, suggestion a sort of stickiness in the relative reputation of journals (the notable exception is the QJE that climbed four positions and became first). The last fact to report is that the number of citations depends on the field: more empirical fields (Development and International Economics) tend to have more citations from recent papers while more theoretical fields (Econometrics and Economic Theory) still have more citations from older papers.

Stefano Dellavigna – Professor of Economics (UC Berkley)

In conclusion, this survey on publications on the top-5 journals in economics tells us that publishing has become tougher,  it requires higher quality of the papers, longer papers and collaboration among scholars to pass the harsh judgements of referees and editors of these journals. However, the glory received from the publication in terms of citations and career seems to be worth the suffering.

On the Status and the Future of Economic History in the World

by Joerg Baten (joerg.baten@uni-tuebingen.de) and Julia Muschallik (julia.muschallik@uni-tuebingen.de)

URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:34704&r=his

How many economic historians are there in the world? In which countries or world regions are they concentrated? Can we explain differences in the number of economic historians who are participating in world congresses, and which determinants encourage or limit participation propensity? Using an e-mail questionnaire, we analyse the global situation of this discipline. Overall 59 countries were available to be surveyed in this overview. We estimate the overall number of economic historians in the world to be around 10,400 scholars.

Joerg Baten and Julia Muschallik offer a worthwhile account of the state of economic history as a discipline today. Their effort to establish its distribution around the wold as well as estimating the number of participants in the field is significant and convincing. A number of interesting challenges had to be sorted to arrive at this estimates and cross checking by aggregating through annual conferences and journal publications reinforces the message. But perhaps these estimates could have been more convincing if they had considered the distribution and authorship of working papers distributed by nep-his or SSRN.

This paper opens a number of interesting debates. First, it has made clear we know little as to the actual emergence and evolution of the discipline around the world. There is thus an opportunity to report how and why economic historians became self aware, establish themselves as an area of knowledge and its teaching and research was adopted in different counties. A history of the discipline and its participants if you like.

Secondly, there is an issue about how they dealt with different “tribes”. Establishing the limits of your search always has to deal with “gray areas”. Baten and Muschallik argue that it is in countries with high degree of specialisation such as the US and the UK where business and economic historians can be identified as separate groups. But precisely because economic history combines methods and rhetorical styles of other disciplines, there could have been a bit more sensitivity in the questionnaire to those which feed from economic history and vice versa, namely to allow respondents to identify if they felt to the part of (or actually being active in) business history, marketing history, accounting history and increasingly some within critical management studies. Of course, if according to Baten and Muschallik economic historians are indeed something of a “luxury product”, then what are these other people/areas?

Thirdly, I found the link between the number of academics in a country and its GDP particularly interesting. Coming back to my theme above of a history of the discipline, this opens up questions such as why has specialisation taken place? Why and when did this happen? Is there collaboration or antagonism between these groups? But as mentioned, the line has to be drawn somewhere and answering these sort of questions was not their intent.

Finally, to items for further reflection: a) it will be interesting to see the extent to which, ceteris paribus, their predictions on participants to the World Congress in South Africa are on the mark. b) I was quite happy to see their estimates of total economic historians around the world at 10.5k people, specially as of today nep-his has about 6.5k unique subscribers.

PS Have a look at:

New Bloomberg Economic & Business History Blog, “Echoes”.

Multinational Strategies and Developing Countries in Historical Perspective

By: Geoffrey Jones (Harvard Business School, Entrepreneurial Management Unit)
URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hbs:wpaper:10-076&r=his

This working paper offers a longitudinal and descriptive analysis of the strategies of multinationals from developed countries in developing countries. The central argument is that strategies were shaped by the trade-off between opportunity and risk. Three broad environmental factors determined the trade-off. The first was the prevailing political economy, including the policies of both host and home governments, and the international legal framework. The second was the market and resources of the host country. The third factor was competition from local firms. The impact of these factors on corporate strategies is explored, as shown in Fig. 1, during the three eras in the modern history of globalization from the nineteenth century until the present day. The performance of specific multinationals depended on the extent to which their internal capabilities enabled them to respond to these external opportunities and threats.

International Business and the study of Multinational Corporations is perceived as one of the areas where business historians have made significant contributions. Indeed, the late John Dunning, one of the major contributors to the area, was supportive of using longitudinal and multi-sourced approach to better understand the motivations to pursue foreign owned, value adding activities by firms (or groups of firms). Geoff Jones has also made important contributions to the area as well as documenting the role of entrepreneurs in Latin America. This piece is interesting and welcomed as a way to bring both strands together, although more could be done to portray the issue from the view point of host economies.

South African Agricultural Research and Development: A Century of Change

By: Liebenberg, Frikki, Pardey, Philip G. and Kahn, Michael
URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ags:umaesp:56688&r=his

The 20th Century saw substantive shifts in the structure of agriculture and agricultural production in South Africa. Farm size grew, farm numbers eventually declined, and production increasingly emphasized higher-valued commodities, notably a range of horticultural crops. The real gross value of agricultural output grew steadily (by 3.32 percent per year) from 1910-1981, but declined thereafter (by 0.21 percent per year from 1982-2008). These long-run sectoral changes provide a context to present and assess an entirely new data series on public agricultural R&D (and related regulatory and extension) spending and associated scientist trends. South African agricultural R&D has been affected by a series of major policy changes. These are also documented and discussed here, along with the associated institutional changes regarding the conduct and funding of public agricultural R&D in South Africa. We reveal a number of disturbing trends, including an effective flat lining of the long-run growth in total agricultural R&D spending that took hold in the 1970s, an erratic path of funding per scientist, and a loss of scientific personnel in recent decades. Moreover, South Africa has lost ground relative to its competitors in international commodity markets such as the United States and Australia in terms of the intensity of investment in agricultural R&D. These developments are likely to have long-term, and detrimental, consequences for the productivity performance and competiveness of South African agriculture. They deserve serious policy attention as the 21st Century unfolds, with a firm eye to the long-run given the long lags (often many decades) that typify the relationship between agricultural R&D spending and productivity growth.

This paper highlights the importance of research into business and economic history outside of “Triad” countries (that is, the USA, Western Europe and Japan). More to the point, the need to rescue data relevant for economic management in sub-Sahara Africa (such as the South African export-led fruit, wine, and sugar industries which, the authors tell us, have kept a positive trade balance since 1910). This paper thus offers a first interpretation of a newly constructed long term series of South African agricultural data while focusing on productivity gains from agricultural R&D (in their science policy context).

A very rich and detailed study indeed. Although it would have been interesting to learn more about the changing nature of agricultural organisations themselves (and particularly the influence of say legacy institutions from the British empire to foster entrepreneurship and trade patterns), this paper is certainly worth a read.

Financial crises and financial reforms in Spain: What have we learned?

By Pablo Martín-Aceña, Ángeles Pons & Concepción Beltrán

URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cte:whrepe:wp10-01&r=his

Like the rest of the world, Spain has suffered frequent financial crises and undergone several changes in its regulatory framework. There have been crises that have been followed by reforms of the financial structure, and also troubled financial times with no modification of the regulatory and supervisory regime. In various instances, regulatory changes have predated financial crises, but in others banking crises have occurred without reference to changes in the regulatory regime. Regulation and supervision has been usually absent in the XIXth century, while in the XXth century policy makers have been more active and diligent. Moreover, all major financial crises have been followed by intense financial restructuring, although as elsewhere banking restructuring and interventions not always have been successful (in fact, the cases of failures and mixed results overcome the successful cases). The paper provides a short history of the major financial crises in Spain from 1856 to the present, and also reviews the main financial reforms and the distinctive regulatory regimes that have been in place in this last 150 years time span.

This paper is representative of a series of recent contributions in a number of ways: first, the financial crisis of 2007-9 has opened opportunities to highlight the role of historians to help formulate public policy. Second, there is more to the financial crisis than events around 1929 and the so-called “Atlantic continuity”. As the authors argue, there are lessons to be learn even from economies in the “periphery” such as Spain (which even at times of  “isolation” it has seen drops in real income and industrial production as a result of international events). Third, I think the authors summarize the crux of the discussion here:

But can we really prevent financial crises? Can we design a potent regulatory framework capable to assure the stability of the financial system against all kind ofeconomic events?

Growth, Quality, Happiness, and the Poor

By Deirdre McCloskey


Real national income per head in Britain rose by a factor of about 16 from the 18th century to the present. Other cases, such as that of the U.S. or Korea, have been even more startling, historically speaking. Like the realization in astronomy during the 1920s that most of the “nebulae” detected by telescopes are in fact other galaxies unspeakably far from ours, the Great Fact of economic growth, discovered by historians and economists in the 1950s and elaborated since then, changes everything. And 16, if one follows William Nordhaus’ persuasive arguments about quality improvements in (say) lighting, is a very low lower bound: the true factor is roughly 100. As Maxine Berg has argued, changing quality of products was as important as changes in process. But the gain is not to be measured by pot-of-pleasure “happiness studies.” These are questionable on technical grounds, but especially on the grounds that they do not measure human fulfillment. They ignore the humanities, pretending to scientific precision. It makes more sense to stay with things we economists can actually measure, such as the rise of human scope indicated by the factor of 16 or Nordhaus’ factor of 100, or by what Sen and Nussbaum call “capabilities.” Of course, what we really care about are the scope or capabilities of the poor. These have enormously expanded under “capitalism”—though a better word is simply “innovation,” arising from bourgeois dignity and liberty. It is the Bourgeois Deal: let me alertly seek profit, and I will make you rich.”

In her paper Deirdre McCloskey makes a call for economist to discuss “things we economists can actually measure”. It was never so appropriate, I think. In this second posting I have taken a different approach to select the paper for discussion. As noted in a private exchange with Deirdre, as editor of NEP-HIS and the blog, I  filter contributions twice. Instead, she argued, lets look for a more “democratic” way of selecting papers for discussion.

After giving this some consideration (including a brief discussion with other people running NEP), I came up with the idea of going back and looking at past issues of NEP-HIS reports with the aim of selecting the paper that had the greatest number of downloads. How long back I had to go was not initially clear but, due to a hardware issue at NEP, the latest report from which download statistics were available was that of 2009-10-24. This sort of settle the issue or at least enabled me to start.

It so happened that in that report it was one of Deirdre’s papers that had the greatest number of downloads (90 downloads as of 2009-11-20, with the runner ups having 75 and 74 respectively). That is the paper quoted above.

Before proceeding to discuss Deirdre’s paper, however, let us consider some issues/differences between the selection of papers in the first two blog posts.  On the one hand, in the first blog, the I choose a paper at the same time that I was editing the report  the paper was being distributed. This is the “double filter” described above. So what? Well this action might bias downloads as the selection could influence people, who would not otherwise consider that paper, to actually download it.

On the other hand, on the second blog, the I chose a “recent” report and from it, the “most popular” paper as measured by number of downloads. As mentioned, the selection of the report and cut off date to measure the number of downloads were both arbitrary (but I am sure some of my friends at NEP/RePEc  will have a view as to how to “optimise” these). Anyway, such selection could equally result in greater number of downloads for that paper, for exactly the same reason as discussed above. However, such action will also add to and thus increase the difference between papers with few downloads (presumably of little interest) and the “most popular”.  I am under the impression that search engines tend to favour in their ranking pages (in this case papers) with higher number of previous “hits”. Probably you now get a feel of where I am heading, in the context of Deirdre’s paper above, selecting the “most popular” will increase the difference between “download rich” and “download poor” authors. Is that “fair”?

But it also strikes me that choosing “the most popular” download risks guiding this forum towards discussing “how many angels sit on the head of a pin”, that is, reinforcing “the main stream”. Always selecting papers for discussion solely based on the highest number of downloads will certainly foreclose the possibility that the NEP/Blog editor chooses a contribution which highlights an interesting and perhaps unusual area or a topic that is running through several other papers posted through NEP-HIS and which one in particular seems to summarise well.  Perhaps that is not the case and NEP-HIS subscribers will identify such “jewels”.

I am sure there are other ways to make the process of selection for papers to be discussed in the blog much more democratic and transparent. For instance, a voting system which is independent of downloads and in which subscribers directly express their preferences.  That sort of application will not even need an editor in the blog. However, NEP at the moment lacks such system as well as the resources in its infrastructure to do it (but as an “open platform” would be more than happy to support anyone who wishes to consider making a contribution!).

There is, of course, the possibility that people actually write to me as NEP-HIS Editor and suggest papers (from other authors) to be included in the discussion. I honestly don’t expect that to happen regularly but happy to entertain and action any and all such suggestions. That would still be the result of “editor’s choice”, though.

So perhaps a balance could be struck and every other week the editor selects a paper while the rest of the time, the “most downloaded” is chosen for discussion. What do you think?  Input here would be must appreciated.

Now lets talk about the paper, here I am acting solely as facilitator as you have “spoken”, please lets have your comments on the content as well….