That's the goal of a web based portal called Intern Match.
Here's an announcement about them from TechCrunch: InternMatch Raises $400K To Help Students Find The Perfect Internship
"InternMatch wants to replace the career fair for college students who want internships at small and mid-size companies. On InternMatch’s platform, both internship seekers and employers can search for a match, receive skill and location based matching recommendations, and access tools to manage the application process (i.e. tips for resume creation, internship preparation, and more).
"For companies, InternMatch provides a match guarantee—if an employer doesn’t find an intern within 60 days, they get a full refund. The startup wants to set itself apart from competition by focusing on regional growth and by providing a dead simple UI where students can search and apply to positions without registration. Already, InternMatch has thousands of west coast opportunities are already available."
HT: Eric Budish
Monday, February 21, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Calls for unraveling of Ph.D. education may be premature
At least that is the conclusion of an article by Joshua Tucker of NYU's department of Politics that appeared at Inside Higher Ed, Academe as Meritocracy.
He takes issue with recent calls (including this one in The Economist, that's gotten a lot of attention) to limit the number of Ph.D. students, so that the number of new Ph.D.s would better match the number of new academic positions. He writes:
"As I was reading this article, I was trying to reconcile the horrors of academia**** with the fact that I will soon be slogging through hundreds of applications for potential grad students who will want something like one of the 25-30 slots we will offer for our next Ph.D. class. Could I in good conscience actually admit any of these students? I mean, after all, they must clearly be deceiving themselves into thinking this could lead to a good career. Unless, of course, they turn out like one of our students this year who has job offers at multiple top universities. Or our other students who went on the market this year and landed good jobs. Or one of my students who didn't even apply for an academic job, but wound up at a top-notch consulting firm. Or the excellent Ph.D. students from other universities we've just hired. They've turned out O.K., haven't they? Would they have been better off had some well-meaning admissions offer turned off the spigot at the source and only admitted a quarter of the graduate students to NYU that we actually admitted? Maybe they would have been at the top of their class, but maybe not.
...
"And this, perhaps, is why it is not a bad thing that we admit more Ph.D. students to programs than we have jobs for as university professors. Because the alternative is that we have to decide a lot earlier who is going to be good and who is going to be bad. If I can admit 20 students to the Ph.D. program at NYU next year, then that is 20 students who have a chance to shine. They may not all make it, but it is worth considering whether we are better off giving those 20 students a chance then picking now -- based solely on their undergraduate record -- only five who will be given a chance.
He takes issue with recent calls (including this one in The Economist, that's gotten a lot of attention) to limit the number of Ph.D. students, so that the number of new Ph.D.s would better match the number of new academic positions. He writes:
"As I was reading this article, I was trying to reconcile the horrors of academia**** with the fact that I will soon be slogging through hundreds of applications for potential grad students who will want something like one of the 25-30 slots we will offer for our next Ph.D. class. Could I in good conscience actually admit any of these students? I mean, after all, they must clearly be deceiving themselves into thinking this could lead to a good career. Unless, of course, they turn out like one of our students this year who has job offers at multiple top universities. Or our other students who went on the market this year and landed good jobs. Or one of my students who didn't even apply for an academic job, but wound up at a top-notch consulting firm. Or the excellent Ph.D. students from other universities we've just hired. They've turned out O.K., haven't they? Would they have been better off had some well-meaning admissions offer turned off the spigot at the source and only admitted a quarter of the graduate students to NYU that we actually admitted? Maybe they would have been at the top of their class, but maybe not.
...
"And this, perhaps, is why it is not a bad thing that we admit more Ph.D. students to programs than we have jobs for as university professors. Because the alternative is that we have to decide a lot earlier who is going to be good and who is going to be bad. If I can admit 20 students to the Ph.D. program at NYU next year, then that is 20 students who have a chance to shine. They may not all make it, but it is worth considering whether we are better off giving those 20 students a chance then picking now -- based solely on their undergraduate record -- only five who will be given a chance.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Relative manipulability of school choice systems
That's the topic of a new NBER working paper by Parag Pathak and Tayfun Sönmez:
SCHOOL ADMISSIONS REFORM IN CHICAGO AND ENGLAND: COMPARING MECHANISMS BY THEIR VULNERABILITY TO MANIPULATION, Working Paper 16783.
Abstract: In Fall 2009, officials from Chicago Public Schools changed their assignment mechanism for coveted spots at selective college preparatory high schools midstream. After asking about 14,000 applicants to submit their preferences for schools under one mechanism, the district asked them re-submit their preferences under a new mechanism. Officials were concerned that "high-scoring kids were being rejected simply because of the order in which they listed their college prep preferences" under the abandoned mechanism. What is somewhat puzzling is that the new mechanism is also manipulable.
This paper introduces a method to compare mechanisms based on their vulnerability to manipulation. Under our notion, the old mechanism is more manipulable than the new Chicago mechanism. Indeed, the old Chicago mechanism is at least as manipulable as any other plausible mechanism. A number of similar transitions between mechanisms took place in England after the widely popular Boston mechanism was ruled illegal in 2007. Our approach provides support for these and other recent policy changes involving matching mechanisms.
SCHOOL ADMISSIONS REFORM IN CHICAGO AND ENGLAND: COMPARING MECHANISMS BY THEIR VULNERABILITY TO MANIPULATION, Working Paper 16783.
Abstract: In Fall 2009, officials from Chicago Public Schools changed their assignment mechanism for coveted spots at selective college preparatory high schools midstream. After asking about 14,000 applicants to submit their preferences for schools under one mechanism, the district asked them re-submit their preferences under a new mechanism. Officials were concerned that "high-scoring kids were being rejected simply because of the order in which they listed their college prep preferences" under the abandoned mechanism. What is somewhat puzzling is that the new mechanism is also manipulable.
This paper introduces a method to compare mechanisms based on their vulnerability to manipulation. Under our notion, the old mechanism is more manipulable than the new Chicago mechanism. Indeed, the old Chicago mechanism is at least as manipulable as any other plausible mechanism. A number of similar transitions between mechanisms took place in England after the widely popular Boston mechanism was ruled illegal in 2007. Our approach provides support for these and other recent policy changes involving matching mechanisms.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Lawsuit against ban on compensating bone marrow donors moves forward
Compensating Bone Marrow Donors Could Save Lives But the Government Bans It
"Arlington, Va.—Every year, nearly 3,000 Americans die because they cannot find a life-saving bone marrow donor match—a trend that disproportionately impacts minorities. But on Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2011, cancer patients from across the nation who can’t find a donor match will square off in court against the U.S. Attorney General seeking to strike down part of a federal law that bans anyone from offering even modest compensation to bone marrow donors. If the cancer patients are successful in their suit, compensation could be offered to those who donate bone marrow, thus attracting more donors and saving more lives.
This video (appears above) explains the life-or-death legal battle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMcXvMxVFUA"
"Arlington, Va.—Every year, nearly 3,000 Americans die because they cannot find a life-saving bone marrow donor match—a trend that disproportionately impacts minorities. But on Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2011, cancer patients from across the nation who can’t find a donor match will square off in court against the U.S. Attorney General seeking to strike down part of a federal law that bans anyone from offering even modest compensation to bone marrow donors. If the cancer patients are successful in their suit, compensation could be offered to those who donate bone marrow, thus attracting more donors and saving more lives.
This video (appears above) explains the life-or-death legal battle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMcXvMxVFUA"
...
"Under the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984, giving a college student a scholarship or giving a new homeowner a mortgage payment for donating marrow could land everyone—doctors, nurses, donors and patients—in federal prison for up to five years. NOTA’s criminal ban violates equal protection because it arbitrarily treats renewable bone marrow like nonrenewable solid organs (such as kidneys) instead of like other renewable or inexhaustible cells (such as blood) for which compensated donation is legal. Unlike organs such as kidneys, donated bone marrow replenishes itself in just a few weeks after it is donated, leaving the donor whole once again."
HT: Greg Mankiw
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Medieval Matching Markets
That's the title of a working paper by Lars Börner and Daniel Quint, studying brokerage rules developed by central and western European towns in the years from 1200 to the 1600: their map is below. Traveling merchants would either have the option or be required to deal with local brokers, who operated by a number of different rules (e.g. in some towns they could only act as brokers and could not engage in private deals on their own behalf). The paper analyzes the brokerage rules in a two-sided matching framework, in which considerations of stability are important to the brokers either to avoid having merchants do without brokers, or to avoid having them go to other brokers.
"This paper studies the market microstructure of pre-industrial Europe. In particular we investigate the institution of the broker in markets and fairs, and develop a unique data set of approximately 1100 sets of brokerage rules in 42 merchant towns in Central and Western Europe from the late 13th to the end of the 17th century. We show that towns implemented brokerage as an efficient matchmaking institution in a two-sided market problem. Furthermore, towns differentiated seller-friendly from buyer-friendlier matching mechanisms. We show that the decision to implement matchmaking mechanisms, and whether these mechanisms would be buyer- or seller friendly, depends on the products in question and the stated policy goals of the town, as well as time and geographic variables."
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Two faces of kidney transplantation
Two men who have played significant roles in kidney transplantation are both named Sonmez.
One is the great Boston College economist Tayfun Sonmez, one of the pioneers of kidney exchange.
The other is the (also) Turkish kidney transplant surgeon Yusuf Sonmez, who is once again in the news for his alleged role in both kidney black markets and in war crimes in Kosovo. In a recent interview in the NY Times, focusing primarily on the black market allegations, he is asked about both the recipients and the donor/vendors: Monster or Savior? Doctor Draws New Scrutiny.
“There are two Yusufs, one my family and friends know and the one created in the press who is a monster— this is a drama, a tragedy,” said Dr. Sonmez, 53, a trim, angular man with intense, gray-green eyes and a graying goatee. “Up to now, I didn’t kill anybody. I didn’t harm anybody, counting donors or recipients. I have not committed any kind of social harm to anyone. This is the main thing that I am proud of.”
...
"Dr. Sonmez is wanted with regard to one of the most troubling prosecutions to emerge recently— a European Union investigation into trafficking in Kosovo in which seven people, mostly prominent local doctors, have been charged with illegal kidney transplants in a private clinic. Dr. Sonmez has not been charged in Kosovo, but the prosecution contends he played a central role in the ring.
"That case has become intertwined with a volatile two-year Council of Europe inquiry that made links between the Kosovo prime minister, Hashim Thaci, and a criminal enterprise of some former Kosovo Liberation Army fighters accused of executing Serbian prisoners in 1999 and 2000 for their organs.
"Dr. Sonmez has denied wrongdoing in either situation, but a Turkish immigrant who lost consciousness at an airport in Kosovo after a kidney removal, and the patient who investigators say received his kidney, both identified Dr. Sonmez as part of the operating team. He says he was only in the operating room offering advice to others.
"Investigators have focused on the role of Dr. Sonmez in 2008 as a surgeon for the Medicus private clinic in a rundown neighborhood in Pristina, Kosovo’s capital, where they said kidneys were removed from impoverished immigrants recruited on false promises of payment that they never received. The organs were transplanted to wealthy patients from Canada, Germany, Poland and Israel who paid up to €90,000, or $122,000.
...
"By his estimate, most of the thousands of transplants he has performed since he began in 1992 involved live, unrelated donors. He said his survival rate was high because he presided over the removal and transplant of kidneys, monitoring patients side by side for 48 hours.
“This is amazing,” he said of the transplant process. “I love it — to watch the changes with the new organ, the changes in the body, to move with the changes, to make changes in the medication.”
"Typically, he said, he requires donors and recipients to submit signed, notarized statements to declare that money has not been exchanged.
"How does he know that desperately poor kidney donors are not being exploited by a murky world of brokers, fixers and wealthy donors with lavish insurance?
“I don’t need to ask these questions,” he said, “because I do believe that people have their own authority over their own body. They are not stealing, they are not cheating. So this is the shame of the system. Not their shame.”
...
"In the next few weeks, Dr. Sonmez and his lawyer are poised to head to Kosovo to give his statements.
“They want information about bigger fish,” said Murat Sofuoglu, an old friend and lawyer for Mr. Sonmez, who has been shuttling between Istanbul and Pristina to negotiate terms for the doctor to give a statement to prosecutors.
“Not me,” Dr. Sonmez said, picking at a honey-drenched piece of baklava. “I am not the big fish.”
One is the great Boston College economist Tayfun Sonmez, one of the pioneers of kidney exchange.
The other is the (also) Turkish kidney transplant surgeon Yusuf Sonmez, who is once again in the news for his alleged role in both kidney black markets and in war crimes in Kosovo. In a recent interview in the NY Times, focusing primarily on the black market allegations, he is asked about both the recipients and the donor/vendors: Monster or Savior? Doctor Draws New Scrutiny.
“There are two Yusufs, one my family and friends know and the one created in the press who is a monster— this is a drama, a tragedy,” said Dr. Sonmez, 53, a trim, angular man with intense, gray-green eyes and a graying goatee. “Up to now, I didn’t kill anybody. I didn’t harm anybody, counting donors or recipients. I have not committed any kind of social harm to anyone. This is the main thing that I am proud of.”
...
"Dr. Sonmez is wanted with regard to one of the most troubling prosecutions to emerge recently— a European Union investigation into trafficking in Kosovo in which seven people, mostly prominent local doctors, have been charged with illegal kidney transplants in a private clinic. Dr. Sonmez has not been charged in Kosovo, but the prosecution contends he played a central role in the ring.
"That case has become intertwined with a volatile two-year Council of Europe inquiry that made links between the Kosovo prime minister, Hashim Thaci, and a criminal enterprise of some former Kosovo Liberation Army fighters accused of executing Serbian prisoners in 1999 and 2000 for their organs.
"Dr. Sonmez has denied wrongdoing in either situation, but a Turkish immigrant who lost consciousness at an airport in Kosovo after a kidney removal, and the patient who investigators say received his kidney, both identified Dr. Sonmez as part of the operating team. He says he was only in the operating room offering advice to others.
"Investigators have focused on the role of Dr. Sonmez in 2008 as a surgeon for the Medicus private clinic in a rundown neighborhood in Pristina, Kosovo’s capital, where they said kidneys were removed from impoverished immigrants recruited on false promises of payment that they never received. The organs were transplanted to wealthy patients from Canada, Germany, Poland and Israel who paid up to €90,000, or $122,000.
...
"By his estimate, most of the thousands of transplants he has performed since he began in 1992 involved live, unrelated donors. He said his survival rate was high because he presided over the removal and transplant of kidneys, monitoring patients side by side for 48 hours.
“This is amazing,” he said of the transplant process. “I love it — to watch the changes with the new organ, the changes in the body, to move with the changes, to make changes in the medication.”
"Typically, he said, he requires donors and recipients to submit signed, notarized statements to declare that money has not been exchanged.
"How does he know that desperately poor kidney donors are not being exploited by a murky world of brokers, fixers and wealthy donors with lavish insurance?
“I don’t need to ask these questions,” he said, “because I do believe that people have their own authority over their own body. They are not stealing, they are not cheating. So this is the shame of the system. Not their shame.”
...
"In the next few weeks, Dr. Sonmez and his lawyer are poised to head to Kosovo to give his statements.
“They want information about bigger fish,” said Murat Sofuoglu, an old friend and lawyer for Mr. Sonmez, who has been shuttling between Istanbul and Pristina to negotiate terms for the doctor to give a statement to prosecutors.
“Not me,” Dr. Sonmez said, picking at a honey-drenched piece of baklava. “I am not the big fish.”
Monday, February 14, 2011
The computer revolution recapitulates the sexual revolution
When I was young, computers could only be accessed within well defined institutions (like university computer centers), with approved software. But then personal computers became available, and pretty soon we were all computing promiscuously, at home and in the office, with third party software (unless we were Apple users, in which case we still used approved software). And computing wasn't just for data and work anymore, it was also for fun, something you could do spontaneously.
The internet only accelerated things. Old barriers broke down.
Then came viruses. Strange software wasn't safe anymore, you could catch something that could really harm you. And you could pass it on to your correspondents and collaborators if you were infected. You had to be careful with whom you traded bits and bytes.
Today Apple is back in vogue; iPhone apps are approved software. We all have virus scanners, and our IT checkups may now include routine tests for infection. Our junk mail filters try to protect us from inappropriate contact. We practice safe computing.
The internet only accelerated things. Old barriers broke down.
Then came viruses. Strange software wasn't safe anymore, you could catch something that could really harm you. And you could pass it on to your correspondents and collaborators if you were infected. You had to be careful with whom you traded bits and bytes.
Today Apple is back in vogue; iPhone apps are approved software. We all have virus scanners, and our IT checkups may now include routine tests for infection. Our junk mail filters try to protect us from inappropriate contact. We practice safe computing.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Misc. kidney exchange
A press release from Georgetown University Hospital reports that half of their kidney transplants now arise from kidney exchange: Transplant Numbers Show New Kidney Exchange Program Increased the Rate of Kidney Transplants at Georgetown Two-Fold Since 2008
I recently returned from talking about kidney exchange in Milan. Eliana La Ferrara of Bocconi U. points out the following news story summarizing the current situation (in Italian): Fazio: sì alla donazione d'organi da parte di «samaritani» . It says that the transplant law in Italy has recently been changed to allow live donations by donors who are not close relatives, and it seems to suggest that the first transplants allowed under the new law should be two-way kidney exchanges. It also notes that the waiting list for kidney transplants in Italy recently had about 9,000 people on it, and that in 2009 there were about 1,700 transplants, of which only a few dozen were from living donors.
An Australian parliamentarian, Catherine King, writes about the first kidney exchange in the Australian Paired Kidney Exchange (AKX) program:
The American Medical News writes about the pilot National Kidney Paired Donation program in the U.S.:
Kidney exchange program makes 1st matches: The United Network for Organ Sharing brings together incompatible donor-recipient pairs through a national pool. Mike Rees and I are both briefly quoted on some of the obstacles that still need to be overcome to make that program a success on a large scale.
Scripps News service carries a story about the pilot National Kidney Paired Donation program, emphasizing the role played by CMU's Tuomas Sandholm: Computer algorithm matches unrelated donors, kidneys
In Canada, they are asking Who should travel in kidney exchange programs: the donor, or the organ?
Marie-Chantal Fortin, Bryn Williams-Jones , Open Medicine, Vol 5, No 1 (2011)
"In 2009 the Canadian Blood services launched the Living Donor Paired Exchange Registry. This program circumvents the obstacle presented by blood-group or immunologic incompatibility between a living potential donor and his or her intended recipient. At the beginning, only 3 provinces joined the program, but as of October 2010 all Canadian provinces are participants. Up to now, participating donors have travelled to recipients’ transplant centres. We might question whether, in a country such as Canada, the donor or the organ should travel. In this article, we review the arguments for donor travel and the arguments for shipping the kidney."
Preliminary, still partial evidence from the U.S. suggests It's Okay to Ship Live-Donor Kidneys
"Transporting live-donor kidneys, sometimes over great distances, does not appear to have a negative effect on transplantation outcomes, researchers found."
And here's a gated link to the paper in the AJT:
Transporting Live Donor Kidneys for Kidney Paired Donation: Initial National Results, D. L. Segev1,2,*, J. L. Veale3, J. C. Berger1, J. M. Hiller1, R. L. Hanto4, D. B. Leeser5, S. R. Geffner6, S. Shenoy7, W. I. Bry8, S. Katznelson8, M. L. Melcher9, M. A. Rees10, E. N. S. Samara11, A. K. Israni12, M. Cooper13, R. J. Montgomery1, L. Malinzak14, J. Whiting15, D. Baran16, J. I. Tchervenkov16, J. P. Roberts17, J. Rogers18, D. A. Axelrod19, C. E. Simpkins1, R. A. Montgomery1
Article first published online: 10 JAN 2011
I recently returned from talking about kidney exchange in Milan. Eliana La Ferrara of Bocconi U. points out the following news story summarizing the current situation (in Italian): Fazio: sì alla donazione d'organi da parte di «samaritani» . It says that the transplant law in Italy has recently been changed to allow live donations by donors who are not close relatives, and it seems to suggest that the first transplants allowed under the new law should be two-way kidney exchanges. It also notes that the waiting list for kidney transplants in Italy recently had about 9,000 people on it, and that in 2009 there were about 1,700 transplants, of which only a few dozen were from living donors.
An Australian parliamentarian, Catherine King, writes about the first kidney exchange in the Australian Paired Kidney Exchange (AKX) program:
The American Medical News writes about the pilot National Kidney Paired Donation program in the U.S.:
Kidney exchange program makes 1st matches: The United Network for Organ Sharing brings together incompatible donor-recipient pairs through a national pool. Mike Rees and I are both briefly quoted on some of the obstacles that still need to be overcome to make that program a success on a large scale.
Scripps News service carries a story about the pilot National Kidney Paired Donation program, emphasizing the role played by CMU's Tuomas Sandholm: Computer algorithm matches unrelated donors, kidneys
In Canada, they are asking Who should travel in kidney exchange programs: the donor, or the organ?
Marie-Chantal Fortin, Bryn Williams-Jones , Open Medicine, Vol 5, No 1 (2011)
"In 2009 the Canadian Blood services launched the Living Donor Paired Exchange Registry. This program circumvents the obstacle presented by blood-group or immunologic incompatibility between a living potential donor and his or her intended recipient. At the beginning, only 3 provinces joined the program, but as of October 2010 all Canadian provinces are participants. Up to now, participating donors have travelled to recipients’ transplant centres. We might question whether, in a country such as Canada, the donor or the organ should travel. In this article, we review the arguments for donor travel and the arguments for shipping the kidney."
Preliminary, still partial evidence from the U.S. suggests It's Okay to Ship Live-Donor Kidneys
"Transporting live-donor kidneys, sometimes over great distances, does not appear to have a negative effect on transplantation outcomes, researchers found."
And here's a gated link to the paper in the AJT:
Transporting Live Donor Kidneys for Kidney Paired Donation: Initial National Results, D. L. Segev1,2,*, J. L. Veale3, J. C. Berger1, J. M. Hiller1, R. L. Hanto4, D. B. Leeser5, S. R. Geffner6, S. Shenoy7, W. I. Bry8, S. Katznelson8, M. L. Melcher9, M. A. Rees10, E. N. S. Samara11, A. K. Israni12, M. Cooper13, R. J. Montgomery1, L. Malinzak14, J. Whiting15, D. Baran16, J. I. Tchervenkov16, J. P. Roberts17, J. Rogers18, D. A. Axelrod19, C. E. Simpkins1, R. A. Montgomery1
Article first published online: 10 JAN 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Will reputation and crowd sourcing facilitate alternative forms of peer review?
That's the question raised in a (gated) article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about a proposal to publish papers online, and then have them subject to comment: 'Facebook of Science' Seeks to Reshape Peer Review
"Mr. Tracz plans to turn his latest Internet experiment, a large network of leading scientists called the Faculty of 1000, into what some call "the Facebook of science" and a force that will change the nature of peer review. His vision is to transform papers from one-shot events owned by publishers into evolving discussions among those researchers, authors, and readers.
...
"The core function of F1000 is to allow members to highlight any newly published paper that they consider interesting and give it a points rating of six (recommended), eight (must read), or 10 (exceptional). Many members give network access to a junior colleague who helps them rate publications.
"Members say in a sentence or two why they find the paper interesting. Readers then are able to attach their own comments to the F1000 site. (Authors can appeal comments they consider unreasonable.)
...
"For Mr. Tracz, this objective leads inevitably back to the more grandiose goal of upending the existing publishing system. "There are two big issues, for science and for publishing," he says. "One is peer review, and one is the publishing of data." While many researchers and publishers consider prepublication peer review to be, at worst, a necessary evil, Mr. Tracz is scathing about its weaknesses. "Except for a tiny little part at the top, where it is done seriously, peer review has become a joke. It is not done properly, it delays publication unnecessarily, it is open to abuse, and is being abused. It is seriously sick, and it has been for a while."
"Mr. Tracz plans to turn his latest Internet experiment, a large network of leading scientists called the Faculty of 1000, into what some call "the Facebook of science" and a force that will change the nature of peer review. His vision is to transform papers from one-shot events owned by publishers into evolving discussions among those researchers, authors, and readers.
...
"The core function of F1000 is to allow members to highlight any newly published paper that they consider interesting and give it a points rating of six (recommended), eight (must read), or 10 (exceptional). Many members give network access to a junior colleague who helps them rate publications.
"Members say in a sentence or two why they find the paper interesting. Readers then are able to attach their own comments to the F1000 site. (Authors can appeal comments they consider unreasonable.)
...
"For Mr. Tracz, this objective leads inevitably back to the more grandiose goal of upending the existing publishing system. "There are two big issues, for science and for publishing," he says. "One is peer review, and one is the publishing of data." While many researchers and publishers consider prepublication peer review to be, at worst, a necessary evil, Mr. Tracz is scathing about its weaknesses. "Except for a tiny little part at the top, where it is done seriously, peer review has become a joke. It is not done properly, it delays publication unnecessarily, it is open to abuse, and is being abused. It is seriously sick, and it has been for a while."
Friday, February 11, 2011
Experiments in Industrial Organization
Hans-Theo Normann and Bradley Ruffle have edited a special issue of the International Journal of Industrial Organization on Experiments in Industrial Organization
Buyer confusion and market prices ► Sellers make it hard for buyers to assess the quality of their goods ► As a result buyers are confused about the relative quality of different goods ► This allows sellers to increase their prices.
| Introduction to the special issue on experiments in industrial organization Pages 1-3 Hans-Theo Normann, Bradley Ruffle | ||||
PDF (131 K)
| An experimental study of exclusive contracts Original Research Article Pages 4-13 Angela M. Smith | ||||
| Buyer confusion and market prices Original Research Article Pages 14-22 Kenan Kalaycı, Jan Potters | ||||
Research highlights
| Information value and externalities in reputation building Original Research Article Pages 23-33 Gary E. Bolton, Axel Ockenfels, Felix Ebeling | ||||
| Auctions with toeholds: An experimental study of company takeovers Original Research Article Pages 34-45 Sotiris Georganas, Rosemarie Nagel | ||||
| An experimental test of automatic mitigation of wholesale electricity prices Original Research Article Pages 46-53 Daniel L. Shawhan, Kent D. Messer, William D. Schulze, Richard E. Schuler | ||||
| Auctions with resale when private values are uncertain: Evidence from the lab and field Original Research Article Pages 54-64 Andreas Lange, John A. List, Michael K. Price | ||||
| Is there a U-shaped relation between competition and investment? Original Research Article Pages 65-73 Dario Sacco, Armin Schmutzler | ||||
| An experiment on spatial competition with endogenous pricing Original Research Article Pages 74-83 Iván Barreda-Tarrazona, Aurora García-Gallego, Nikolaos Georgantzís, Joaquín Andaluz-Funcia, Agustín Gil-Sanz | ||||
| Fighting collusion in auctions: An experimental investigation Original Research Article Pages 84-96 Audrey Hu, Theo Offerman, Sander Onderstal | ||||
| Can real-effort investments inhibit the convergence of experimental markets? Original Research Article Pages 97-103 Timothy N. Cason, Lata Gangadharan, Nikos Nikiforakis | ||||
| Group identity in markets Original Research Article Pages 104-115 Sherry Xin Li, Kutsal Dogan, Ernan Haruvy | ||||
| Rent seeking in groups Original Research Article Pages 116-125 T.K. Ahn, R. Mark Isaac, Timothy C. Salmon | ||||
| Cartel formation and pricing: The effect of managerial decision-making rules Original Research Article Pages 126-133 Joris Gillet, Arthur Schram, Joep Sonnemans | ||||
| Price dynamics and collusion under short-run price commitments Original Research Article Pages 134-153 Kasper Leufkens, Ronald Peeters | ||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
