Key Journals and Databases for Economics Students in the Age of AI Discovery

Economics students now study in an environment where access to knowledge is abundant but unevenly structured. The old problem of scarcity has not disappeared, but it has been joined by a new problem: overabundance. Students must decide which journals are worth reading, which databases are reliable, how citation networks shape what becomes “important,” and how search tools, including AI-assisted systems, influence what is visible and what remains hidden. This article examines key journals and databases for economics students through a theoretical lens that combines Bourdieu’s concept of academic field and capital, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism. Rather than offering a simple list of resources, the article argues that journals and databases are not neutral containers of information. They are part of a structured global knowledge system that distributes prestige, legitimacy, and visibility unevenly across institutions, regions, languages, and methodologies.

Methodologically, the article uses a conceptual and analytical review approach. It synthesizes major literature on scholarly communication, research evaluation, database infrastructures, and economics education, while interpreting journal and database use as a social practice shaped by academic hierarchies. The analysis identifies three levels of relevance for economics students: foundational discovery tools, discipline-specific journal ecosystems, and complementary data and policy repositories. It also distinguishes between tools that help students locate literature, tools that help them evaluate literature, and tools that help them contextualize research historically and institutionally.

The findings show that economics students benefit most when they treat journals and databases as part of a layered research strategy rather than as isolated destinations. General discovery platforms such as Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, and library catalogs help students map the field. Core economics databases such as EconLit, RePEc, IDEAS, and NBER working paper collections help students identify disciplinary conversations. Broader economic and social data sources such as the World Bank DataBank, OECD repositories, IMF databases, and national statistical offices support empirical grounding. The article also shows that prestige and visibility are socially produced: certain journals dominate because they accumulate symbolic capital, while certain databases become powerful because universities imitate accepted international standards. The conclusion argues that economics students need more than technical search skills. They need field awareness, methodological judgment, and critical literacy about how academic knowledge is organized.

Introduction

Economics students often begin their academic journey with a practical question: where should I look for reliable sources? At first glance, the answer seems easy. A student may use a library search box, Google Scholar, or a recommended database from a course guide. Yet the question is more complex than it appears. To ask where to search is also to ask which knowledge is considered legitimate, which institutions shape disciplinary standards, and which forms of evidence are rewarded in academic life. Journals and databases do not simply store information. They organize attention. They guide reading habits. They define pathways of recognition. In doing so, they influence how economics students learn to think, cite, and position themselves within the discipline.

This matters because economics is a field strongly shaped by reputational hierarchies. Students quickly encounter distinctions between “top journals,” “field journals,” “working papers,” “indexed publications,” and “policy reports.” They are told that some outlets are central, others peripheral, some rigorous, others merely descriptive. They also learn that databases are not interchangeable. Some databases are broad and multidisciplinary. Some are specialized. Some privilege formal publication. Some capture working papers and early research circulation. Some index the global South poorly. Others reproduce English-language dominance. These differences affect the student experience in direct ways. A student who only uses one search tool may mistakenly believe that the most visible articles are automatically the most important. Another may confuse citation counts with intellectual quality. Another may overlook policy literature, regional journals, or historically significant scholarship because such work is less algorithmically prominent.

The rise of AI-assisted discovery has made this issue even more important. Search is no longer just a matter of keywords typed into a database. Increasingly, students ask conversational systems to summarize debates, identify journals, or recommend articles. This can save time, but it also carries risks. When search becomes frictionless, the student may lose sight of how knowledge is filtered, ranked, and validated. In economics, where models, evidence, and policy implications often depend on subtle assumptions, that loss of disciplinary judgment can be serious. Students need to know not only where information is found, but how it enters the academic field and why some forms of knowledge travel further than others.

This article argues that economics students should approach journals and databases as part of a social infrastructure of knowledge. The article therefore moves beyond the usual practical guide format. It does identify key journals and major databases, but it also explains how and why they matter. It uses three theoretical frameworks to do so. First, Bourdieu’s theory of field, capital, and habitus helps explain how journals become prestigious and why students internalize distinctions between “serious” and “less serious” outlets. Second, world-systems theory helps explain why economics knowledge is unequally produced and circulated across core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral locations. Third, institutional isomorphism helps explain why universities, libraries, and accreditation systems tend to converge around the same journal lists and database subscriptions, even when local needs differ.

The article has five goals. First, it clarifies the difference between journals, indexes, databases, repositories, and data portals, because students often use these terms loosely. Second, it identifies the core journals and databases that economics students should know. Third, it explains how these tools function within academic power structures. Fourth, it offers a practical interpretive framework for using them critically. Fifth, it suggests that research literacy in economics must combine technical searching with sociological understanding of the academic field.

In this sense, the article is aimed at more than beginners. It is written in simple English, but it addresses a serious academic problem: how students can navigate a complex knowledge system without becoming passive consumers of prestige signals. For economics students, learning to search well is not only a study skill. It is part of academic formation itself.

Background and Theoretical Framework

Bourdieu: field, capital, and the reproduction of legitimacy

Pierre Bourdieu’s work offers a powerful way to understand journals and databases as part of an academic field rather than as neutral tools. In Bourdieu’s terms, a field is a structured social space where actors compete over valued forms of capital. In higher education and research, these forms of capital include scientific reputation, publication records, citation counts, institutional affiliation, editorial positions, and access to prestigious networks. Students entering economics are not entering an empty intellectual world. They are entering a field in which hierarchies already exist and where distinction matters.

Within this field, journals function as institutions of consecration. To publish in a highly prestigious economics journal is not only to share research; it is also to acquire symbolic capital. Such journals become markers of excellence because many actors believe in their authority and because powerful institutions reinforce that belief. Editorial boards, tenure committees, ranking systems, and doctoral training programs reproduce the value of those journals over time. Students absorb these values through reading lists, supervisor advice, departmental culture, and citation practices. They begin to recognize certain titles as “serious” even before they fully understand the content.

Databases also matter in Bourdieusian terms because they structure visibility. A database is not simply a storage mechanism; it is part of the distribution of informational capital. What is indexed becomes searchable. What is searchable becomes citable. What is citable becomes teachable and discussable. The database therefore participates in the production of symbolic value. If a journal is visible in major indexes, it gains status. If a paper is not easily discoverable, its chances of entering the mainstream conversation decline. Students who rely heavily on indexed results are participating, often unconsciously, in this distribution of capital.

Bourdieu also helps explain habitus, the set of durable dispositions shaped by one’s social and educational environment. Students at well-resourced universities may develop a habitus of confidence toward complex databases, subscription journals, and advanced search strategies. Students in less resourced contexts may depend more on open repositories, freely accessible working papers, or simplified search pathways. These unequal starting points affect not only access, but also academic self-perception. Thus, the issue is not merely which journal or database exists, but who is positioned to use it effectively.

World-systems theory and the global hierarchy of knowledge

World-systems theory, associated especially with Immanuel Wallerstein, helps widen the analysis beyond individual students and institutions. It draws attention to the global division of labor between core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral zones. Although the theory emerged in relation to capitalism and historical political economy, it can also illuminate academic publishing. Knowledge production is not globally equal. Certain regions, languages, institutions, and publishers occupy the core. Others supply data, regional case studies, or labor without receiving equal recognition.

In economics, this pattern is particularly visible. The discipline’s most prestigious journals are concentrated in elite institutions and publishing ecosystems largely located in North America and Western Europe. The dominant language is English. Methodological norms often reflect core institutional preferences, especially in formal modeling, econometrics, and publication style. This does not mean important economics scholarship is absent elsewhere. It means that the channels through which work becomes globally visible are uneven.

Databases reflect and intensify this unequal structure. Major international indexing systems may include some regional journals, but they rarely neutralize underlying asymmetries. Core journals remain more cited, more discussed, and more frequently assigned in graduate training. Students who search major platforms may therefore receive a map of economics that appears universal but is actually stratified. A question such as agricultural credit in East Africa, labor informality in South Asia, or inflation governance in Latin America may be represented through core institutions more visibly than through locally grounded scholarship.

For economics students, world-systems theory serves as a warning against confusing global prominence with complete representation. It encourages students to ask: whose economics is being indexed? Which countries produce the journals I am reading? Which topics are most visible, and which remain marginalized? This is not an argument against using major journals and databases. It is an argument for using them critically, with an awareness of their geopolitical and linguistic biases.

Institutional isomorphism and the convergence of academic practice

The concept of institutional isomorphism, developed by DiMaggio and Powell, explains why organizations within a field increasingly resemble one another. They describe three mechanisms: coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. This framework is highly relevant to the contemporary academic environment. Universities subscribe to the same databases because accreditation expectations, rankings, and benchmarking create pressure to do so. Libraries adopt similar packages because peer institutions have done the same. Academic departments encourage publication in the same journals because these outlets are recognized internationally. In uncertain environments, organizations imitate what seems legitimate.

For economics students, this means that the journal and database landscape is shaped not only by intellectual merit but also by institutional convergence. A database becomes “essential” partly because many leading universities subscribe to it, recommend it, and build training around it. A journal becomes “top tier” partly because departments, rankings, and hiring practices converge around that classification. These processes are self-reinforcing. Once a database is widely adopted, it gains infrastructural power. Once a journal list becomes normalized, alternative outlets struggle to gain equal recognition.

Institutional isomorphism also explains why students across very different universities may receive similar advice about literature searching, journal ranking, and publication strategy. Standardization has practical benefits. It can improve comparability and make training more efficient. However, it can also narrow intellectual diversity. When departments converge too strongly around the same outlets and indexes, students may learn to optimize for conformity rather than for inquiry. They may read what is visible rather than what is necessary.

Bringing the theories together

Taken together, these three frameworks provide a richer understanding of journals and databases for economics students. Bourdieu explains how prestige and legitimacy operate inside the academic field. World-systems theory explains how global inequality shapes what becomes visible. Institutional isomorphism explains why universities and libraries reproduce the same infrastructures. The result is a layered system where technical search skills are inseparable from questions of power, hierarchy, and academic socialization.

This perspective does not deny the importance of quality control, peer review, or efficient indexing. Instead, it asks students to understand that every search result is part of a structured world. To use journals and databases well, one must learn both the mechanics of retrieval and the sociology of knowledge.

Method

This article uses a conceptual and analytical review method. It is not an empirical survey of student behavior, nor a bibliometric ranking exercise, nor a technical library manual. Instead, it is a theory-informed synthesis designed to interpret journals and databases as social infrastructures relevant to economics students. The method combines four elements.

First, the article draws on classic and contemporary scholarship in sociology of education, academic publishing, and economics knowledge systems. This provides the theoretical foundation for interpreting publication and indexing practices beyond mere functionality. Bourdieu, Wallerstein, and DiMaggio and Powell are used not as decorative references, but as organizing frameworks.

Second, the article classifies the research tools economics students commonly encounter into distinct categories: multidisciplinary citation databases, economics-specific bibliographic resources, working paper and repository systems, policy and institutional research portals, and quantitative data sources. This categorization allows the analysis to distinguish between tools for discovery, tools for evaluation, and tools for empirical research.

Third, the article evaluates resources using criteria relevant to student research practice. These criteria include scope, disciplinary relevance, access model, update speed, citation functionality, historical depth, international coverage, and potential bias. The aim is not to produce a numerical ranking, but to explain why different tools serve different stages of the research process.

Fourth, the article adopts a critical interpretive approach. Rather than treating search infrastructure as neutral, it examines how journal prestige, database design, indexing logic, language dominance, and institutional norms shape student knowledge acquisition. In this sense, the method is closer to critical literature review than to descriptive listing.

The strength of this method lies in its suitability for an academic yet accessible article intended for advanced students and educators. Its limitation is that it does not present original interview data or database usage analytics. However, for the purpose of theory-driven guidance, the method is appropriate. It allows the article to bridge practical relevance and conceptual depth.

Analysis

Understanding the ecosystem: journals, databases, repositories, and data portals

Economics students often use the terms journal, database, and search engine as if they mean the same thing. They do not. A journal is a publication outlet. It is where articles appear. A database is a searchable system that indexes or hosts many journals, articles, abstracts, books, or records. A repository stores preprints, working papers, or institutional outputs. A data portal provides statistical series and datasets rather than scholarly articles. One reason students feel lost is that academic searching requires movement across all these categories.

For example, a student interested in inflation, inequality, labor markets, or development economics may begin with a general search system such as Google Scholar or a university library discovery layer. That first step offers breadth. The student then needs a discipline-specific database such as EconLit or RePEc to refine the search within economics. Next, the student may turn to a working paper source such as NBER or CEPR because economics often circulates important research before formal journal publication. Finally, if the student wants to test an empirical claim, the search may shift again toward the World Bank, IMF, OECD, Penn World Table, or a national statistical office.

Thus, good economics research is rarely a one-database activity. It is an ecosystem practice.

The central multidisciplinary databases

Among large multidisciplinary systems, four types of tools matter especially: Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, and library catalog or discovery systems.

Google Scholar is often the first tool students use because it is easy, fast, and familiar. It covers articles, books, theses, preprints, conference papers, and sometimes institutional uploads. Its major strength is breadth. It is especially helpful for early-stage exploration, citation chasing, and finding accessible versions of texts. However, its coverage is uneven, its indexing rules are less transparent than those of curated databases, and citation counts can include mixed document types. For the economics student, Google Scholar is an excellent discovery gateway but a weak substitute for disciplined evaluation.

Scopus and Web of Science are more selective and more structured. They are useful for identifying journals, citation patterns, and disciplinary influence. Their curated nature gives them authority in many academic institutions. They are especially useful when students need to verify whether a journal is established, compare citation trajectories, or conduct a more controlled literature review. Yet their selectivity also means that what they omit may disappear from the student’s horizon. This is where the earlier theoretical frameworks become important. Selectivity is not only about quality. It is also about institutional recognition.

University library systems play a different role. They connect students to subscription holdings, e-books, local access rights, and librarian-designed subject guides. In practice, many students underuse these systems because they seem less intuitive than open web search. But library discovery layers can be valuable because they are tied to actual institutional access. A student may identify a promising article in Google Scholar, only to discover that the full text is unavailable. A library system can solve that problem more efficiently and can direct the student toward specialized databases unavailable through general search.

Economics-specific bibliographic resources

If general databases map the wider territory, economics-specific resources provide disciplinary depth. The most important starting point is EconLit. Produced by the American Economic Association, EconLit is a major bibliographic database focused on economics literature. It is especially useful because of its disciplinary classification system, controlled indexing, and strong coverage of economics journals and related literature. For students writing essays, term papers, dissertations, or literature reviews in economics, EconLit remains one of the most academically credible tools for defining the boundaries of a topic.

RePEc, together with its interface IDEAS, is equally significant, though in a different way. RePEc is decentralized and strongly connected to the working paper culture of economics. It covers articles, working papers, software components, and author profiles. IDEAS allows students to search across these materials in a flexible and often very efficient way. One of RePEc’s greatest strengths is its openness. It gives students, including those in less resourced institutions, access to a very large share of economics scholarship metadata and many full texts. It also reflects the discipline’s strong prepublication culture, where working papers can shape debate long before journal appearance.

This matters because economics is unusual compared with some other disciplines. Important arguments often circulate first as working papers from institutions such as the National Bureau of Economic Research, Centre for Economic Policy Research, IZA Institute of Labor Economics, or university departments. Students who rely only on formally published journal literature may therefore miss the live conversation of the field. At the same time, working papers require caution. They may later change substantially before publication. A student must learn to distinguish between an influential early paper and a fully peer-reviewed final article.

Another useful resource is SSRN, especially for students working at the boundaries of economics, finance, law, and public policy. SSRN includes many preprints and working papers, and while its quality is mixed, it is valuable for topical awareness and emerging debates. For advanced students, the issue is not whether SSRN is “good” or “bad,” but how to use it properly: as a current-awareness tool rather than as a final authority.

Core journals economics students should know

No article on economics journals can avoid the question of core titles. Yet any list must be handled carefully because journal hierarchies are real but also socially produced. Students should know the names of major journals because these outlets structure the discipline’s canonical debates. At the same time, they should avoid turning journal names into automatic indicators of truth.

The traditionally central general-interest journals include the American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Journal of Political Economy, Econometrica, and Review of Economic Studies. These journals carry high symbolic capital. They publish work considered theoretically significant, methodologically advanced, or broadly important to the field. Students reading these journals gain exposure to mainstream standards of argument, identification, formalization, and scholarly presentation.

However, economics is too broad to be understood through general-interest journals alone. Field journals are essential. Development students may need Journal of Development Economics, World Development, and Development Economics-related outlets. Labor students often rely on Journal of Labor Economics, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, and related journals. Public finance students need journals such as Journal of Public Economics. Monetary and macroeconomics students may turn to Journal of Monetary Economics, Journal of International Economics, or Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control. Students of environmental economics, behavioral economics, health economics, and financial economics each encounter their own specialized journal ecologies.

This is where students often make a mistake. They search only the most famous journal names, assuming that quality flows downward from general prestige. In reality, many of the most relevant and technically strong articles for a specific research question appear in field journals. A student writing on tourism demand shocks, digital platform pricing, fiscal decentralization, or agricultural productivity may find more precise and useful scholarship in specialized journals than in globally celebrated general outlets.

There is also a pedagogical issue. The most prestigious journals often publish highly technical work that may be difficult for undergraduate or early master’s students. This does not reduce their importance, but it means that students should balance aspirational reading with strategic reading. A good literature review does not require reading only the most elite journals. It requires reading the most relevant, credible, and methodologically appropriate scholarship.

Databases for economic data, not just literature

Economics students do not only need articles. They need data. Literature and data are linked, but they are not the same. A student may understand the theory of inflation targeting, labor market participation, tourism multipliers, or digital trade, yet still be unable to test or contextualize the issue without reliable datasets.

Several resources stand out. World Bank DataBank is essential for cross-country indicators on development, poverty, trade, education, governance, and macroeconomic variables. OECD databases are valuable for comparative statistics on member and partner economies, especially in education, labor, productivity, and policy indicators. IMF resources are important for macroeconomic, fiscal, and financial data, especially for students focusing on international economics, balance of payments, or monetary policy. Penn World Table remains useful for long-run comparative macroeconomic analysis. UN databases, national statistical offices, Eurostat, and central bank portals also provide important contextual data.

For economics students, the lesson is clear: article databases tell you what scholars say, while data portals help you examine the evidence yourself. Serious academic work usually requires both.

Citation, visibility, and the problem of academic dependence

One of the strongest effects of databases is their role in citation ecosystems. Once a database becomes central to literature discovery, it influences who gets cited. This can create cumulative advantage. Highly visible journals become more cited because they are easier to find. More citations increase their prestige. More prestige increases their desirability. This cycle resembles what Merton described as the Matthew effect, and it fits closely with Bourdieu’s logic of symbolic accumulation.

Economics students need to understand that citation visibility is partly infrastructural. Search rankings, indexing choices, citation linking, and metadata quality all shape who appears first in the research process. A student who searches a common keyword in a major platform may repeatedly encounter the same institutional and geographical centers of knowledge. Over time, this can produce academic dependence: students learn to cite the already visible rather than to map the field critically.

This is not an argument against citation metrics or established journals. It is an argument against naive use of them. Students should ask not only “what is most cited?” but also “why is it most cited?” Is it methodologically central? Historically foundational? Widely replicated? Or simply advantaged by field position, language, and database prominence?

The economics student in a changing discovery environment

The current research environment is changing quickly. Students increasingly use AI-supported tools for search, synthesis, note-making, and query expansion. This creates opportunities. AI can help students identify keywords, summarize debates, translate technical language into simpler prose, and discover adjacent literature. But the danger is over-delegation. If students treat AI output as a finished literature review, they may inherit hidden biases, miss foundational texts, or reproduce false citations. In economics, where one missing assumption can change the meaning of an entire argument, this is especially risky.

The best response is not rejection but layered verification. Students can use AI to begin, but they should verify through trusted databases, journal websites, library systems, and reference lists. The stronger the research claim, the stronger the verification should be.

Findings

The analysis produces seven main findings.

First, economics students need a layered search strategy rather than a single preferred platform. No single tool is enough. Broad search tools are useful for orientation, discipline-specific tools are needed for precision, and data portals are necessary for empirical grounding. Students who rely on one platform alone develop a narrow and distorted view of the field.

Second, journal prestige and database authority are socially constructed as well as academically earned. The most powerful journals and databases have real value, but their status is also reinforced through academic culture, institutional repetition, and international benchmarking. Bourdieu helps explain this as symbolic capital; institutional isomorphism explains its organizational spread.

Third, economics-specific resources remain essential even in the era of general search engines. Google Scholar may be convenient, but tools such as EconLit, RePEc, and IDEAS are far better for understanding disciplinary structure. They help students distinguish core economics literature from adjacent or loosely related material.

Fourth, working papers are unusually important in economics. Unlike some disciplines where only formal journal publication is central, economics often develops through working paper circulation. Students therefore need to read working papers, but they must do so critically and should verify whether later journal versions exist.

Fifth, the global economics knowledge system remains unequal. World-systems theory helps reveal how core regions dominate journal visibility, language norms, and citation networks. Students who want a more complete understanding of economics must sometimes search beyond the most visible core outlets, especially for region-specific or policy-relevant questions.

Sixth, data literacy is inseparable from literature literacy in economics. Students who know journals but not data sources remain academically limited. Strong economics work requires movement between theory, evidence, and measurement. Databases for articles and databases for data must be treated as connected resources.

Seventh, critical verification has become more important in the age of AI discovery. AI tools can support research efficiency, but they do not replace disciplinary judgment. Students should use them to assist searching, not to outsource evaluation. Database verification, source checking, and citation tracing remain indispensable.

These findings suggest that economics students need an education in information structure, not only in information retrieval. They should learn how academic visibility is produced, how disciplinary authority is maintained, and how to search across multiple levels of the knowledge system.

Conclusion

For economics students, journals and databases are far more than technical aids. They are part of the architecture through which economics exists as a discipline. They shape what is easy to find, what counts as legitimate, what becomes teachable, and what is recognized as serious scholarship. A student who understands only how to click “search” has learned too little. A student who understands why certain journals dominate, why some regions are underrepresented, why institutions converge around the same databases, and why working papers matter in economics has developed a more mature form of research literacy.

This article has argued that the question of key journals and databases should be answered both practically and theoretically. Practically, economics students should know the major general discovery tools, the leading economics-specific databases, the main working paper repositories, and the most important economic data portals. They should also know a core set of general-interest and field journals relevant to their interests. Theoretically, they should understand that these tools are not neutral. Bourdieu shows that journals distribute symbolic capital. World-systems theory shows that knowledge visibility is globally unequal. Institutional isomorphism shows that universities and libraries reproduce the same infrastructures because legitimacy often depends on imitation and standardization.

The most important implication is pedagogical. Economics education should teach database use not as a one-hour library workshop, but as part of academic formation. Students need to learn how to evaluate a journal, how to distinguish a working paper from a final article, how to use citation trails, how to move from article discovery to data collection, and how to read search results critically. They also need to understand that the most visible article is not always the most relevant one, and the most cited journal is not always the only place where serious knowledge lives.

In the coming years, this issue will become even more significant. Search technologies will continue to evolve. AI will continue to reduce the friction of discovery. Yet reduced friction does not automatically produce deeper understanding. In some cases, it may do the opposite. The easier it becomes to retrieve academic language, the more important it becomes to teach students how academic authority is structured.

For economics students, then, the best path is neither blind trust in prestige nor total skepticism toward established systems. It is informed navigation. Use broad tools, but refine with discipline-specific ones. Read prestigious journals, but also read field journals and carefully selected regional or policy sources. Use working papers, but verify later versions. Use data portals, not only article databases. Use AI to support search, but not to replace judgment.

The student who learns this will not only write better assignments. Such a student will also begin to understand economics as a living field of power, method, debate, and global inequality. That is a higher level of academic literacy, and it is exactly what serious education should aim to develop.

Hashtags

#EconomicsStudents #AcademicResearch #ScholarlyDatabases #EconomicsJournals #ResearchMethods #HigherEducation #KnowledgeSystems

References

• Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.

• Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Stanford University Press.

• Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production. Columbia University Press.

• Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of Science and Reflexivity. University of Chicago Press.

• Burris, V. (2004). The academic caste system: Prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 239–264.

• Cronin, B. (2005). The Hand of Science: Academic Writing and Its Rewards. Scarecrow Press.

• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

• Garfield, E. (1979). Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities. Wiley.

• Gingras, Y. (2016). Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation: Uses and Abuses. MIT Press.

• Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

• Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429–431.

• Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0127502.

• Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.

• Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press.

• Milonakis, D., & Fine, B. (2009). From Political Economy to Economics: Method, the Social and the Historical in the Evolution of Economic Theory. Routledge.

• Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Springer.

• North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.

• Parker, M., & Guthrie, J. (2013). The ranking game: Academic publishing and the social sciences. Organization, 20(1), 3–15.

• Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.

• Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System. Academic Press.

• Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.

• Whitley, R. (2000). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

• Willmott, H. (2011). Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship. Organization, 18(4), 429–442.

• Zuckerman, H. (1988). The sociology of science. In N. J. Smelser (Ed.), Handbook of Sociology (pp. 511–574). Sage.