Returns to Networking in Academia

This paper examines effects of academic networks in a Stackelberg differential game between journal editors and authors. Authors choose research papers to maximize satisfaction, while editors determine research quality to maximize journal reputation. Verifying the system for stability, results show that academic networks neither affect the number of publications nor the quality of an author's papers. Networks only affect the number of an author's citations. Editors' preferences for publishing an author because of her network membership seem irrelevant. This happens because editors compete to increase their journal's reputation by publishing high quality papers. Consequently, there is little room for editorial bias. Further, increased journal competition has the potential to erode the citation gains. The equilibrium research quality is below the maximum possible quality. Increases in publication benefits are shown to leave citations unaffected, increase the number of publications, and decrease research quality. The results generally carry through when publishing markets tend to a monopoly