Journal of economic refutations - a proposal

Bowbrick, Peter (2022): Journal of economic refutations - a proposal.

Abstract

Economics is drowning in a flood of bad books and papers, many of them written with the sole objective of getting another publication, many hurriedly written, sloppily researched, culpably negligent or fraudulent. Inevitably, good, honest economists are influenced by some of these, with the result that they produce bad economics themselves. Some waste their entire career by basing it on bad economics they learnt at university. Many journals are reluctant to publish refutations for commercial reasons. Refereeing is necessarily an imperfect system.

A Journal of Economic Refutations would have the main objective of identifying bad economics so that researchers and professionals could avoid it, and so the public would not suffer the harm it causes. It would identify people publishing bad economics, so publishing sloppy, culpably negligent or fraudulent economics would damage their careers, rather than helping it. A refutation is worth a hundred normal papers, sometimes thousands. Another objective is show readers how to refute – a key professional skill for real-world economics.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: economic; refutation; journal
• Subjects: A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics; A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A10 - General; A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A11 - Role of Economics ; Role of Economists ; Market for Economists; A - General Economics and Teaching > A2 - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics; A - General Economics and Teaching > A2 - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics > A20 - General

References

Benson, B. (2022, 7 26). Cognitive bias cheat sheet: An organized list of cognitive biases because thinking is hard. Retrieved from https://betterhumans.pub/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18

Bowbrick, P. (2022). Database on Economic Refutations - a proposal.

Heffernan, M. (2011). Wilful Blindness: why we ignore the obvious at our peril. London: Simon and Shuster UK.

Ingelfinger, F. (1974). Peer review in biomedical publication. New England Journal of Medicine, 686-692.

Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin.

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: CUP.

Koestler, A. (1967). The Ghost in the Machine.

Popper, K. (1974). Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Popper, K. (1975). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Smith, R. (2021, July 8). Time to assume that health research is fraudulent. Retrieved from British Medical Journal: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 184: .