Evaluating Economic Research in a Contested Discipline

This book challenges the view that using SSCI journal citations (especially its impact factor score) and peer review/evaluation are the best ways (in that they are the most objective ways) to evaluate economic research. In a contested discipline such as economics those methods are used by mainstream economists to attack and dismiss heterodox economics. In the book, discriminatory use of these methods vis-a-vis heterodox economics is investigated (with case studies in Australia, Italy, and the United States) and discussed. In addition, it is also shown how such methods can be used to promote heterodox economics and heterodox research (without at the same time denigrating mainstream economics and its research). Finally, the book concludes with the unexpected position that a contested economics discipline is a good thing for it makes for better economists who are more capable of contributing in an open and intelligent manner to economic-social policy issues.