RFS, JFQA, JMCB, and JB are next with 16, 13.2, 10.4, and 9.8 cites, respectively.
Using a 5% level of significance, I find that JF and JFE are significantly higher than the other four; RFS is not significantly higher than JFQA or JMCB but is significantly higher than JB; and JFQA, JMCB, and JB are not significantly higher than each other.
Compared to the medians with self-cites, the medians without self-cites decrease by one for JF, RFS, and JMCB, and by two for JB.
JB, RFS, and JFQA are clustered around 26% to 28%, followed by JFI and JMCB at 33% and 47%, respectively.
The error decreases to 8% with the addition of JFQA and JMCB. Using above the 95th percentile as the definition of a top article, the RTA error with the top three of JF, JFE, and RFS is 18%.
Distribution of Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) Cites for 1996 Journal Articles (Collected on February 7-12, 2004) The 15 journals selected for citation analyses are Journal of Finance (JF), Journal of Financial Economics (NE), Review of Financial Studies (RFS), Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (JFQA), Journal of Money Credit and Banking (JMCB), Journal of Business (JB), Journal of Financial Intermediation (JFI), Journal of International Money and Finance (JIMF), Journal of Banking and Finance (JBF), Journal of Risk and Insurance (JRI), Journal of Futures Markets (JFM), Financial Management (FM), Real Estate Economics (REE), Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics (JREFE), and Journal of Portfolio Management (JPM).
Although 54 datasets were submitted to the JMCB during the project, we judged only eight as satisfactory and 14 as valueless in helping us understand the authors' published work.
Although the JMCB project stimulated discussion of the role of replication in economics, no other journal adopted a policy of requesting data from authors during the 1980s.
A decade after the JMCB project, the replication of previous studies as a part of new research seems an infrequent occurrence.
From January 1983 through mid-1989, the JMCB received nearly 150 submitted datasets and about 300 requests, as shown in Table 1.(7) Except for a surge in requests following the publication of Dewald, Thursby and Anderson (1986), on balance only a few datasets were requested each month even though the number of available datasets increased significantly during the decade.
Louis bulletin board may suggest that the modest costs of requesting data from the JMCB still exceeded the marginal value to an individual researcher of replicating a previous study.
Initially, some anticipated that the NSF's effort would extend the JMCB's practice of requesting and distributing authors' data to a much larger number of journals.