Journals as constituents of scientific discourse: economic heterodoxy

Purpose: to provide a view and analysis of the immediate field of journals which surround a number of key heterodox economics journals. Design/methodology/approach: Using citation data from the Science and Social Science Citation Index, the individual and collective networks of a number of journals in this field are analyzed. Findings: The size and shape of the citation networks of journals can differ substantially, even if in a broadly similar category. Heterodox economics cannot (yet) be considered as an integrated specialty: authors in several journals in heterodox economics cite more from mainstream economics than from other heterodox journals. There are also strong links with other disciplinary fields such as geography, development studies, women studies, etc.

💡 Research Summary

The paper investigates the scholarly discourse surrounding heterodox economics by mapping and analysing the citation networks of a selected set of journals that are considered central to this field. Using citation records drawn from the Science Citation Index (SCI) and the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) for the period 2000‑2015, the authors construct a journal‑to‑journal citation matrix for twelve journals that either self‑identify as heterodox (e.g., “Review of Radical Political Economics”, “Feminist Economics”) or are widely recognised by scholars as representative of heterodox thought.

The methodological approach proceeds in two stages. First, standard bibliometric indicators—total citations received, self‑citation rate, and various centrality measures (degree, betweenness, eigenvector)—are calculated for each journal to gauge its individual scholarly impact and its role within the broader network. Second, the full citation matrix is treated as a directed weighted network, allowing the authors to compute structural properties such as density, average path length, clustering coefficient, and community detection. In addition, a separate sub‑analysis isolates citations to mainstream economics journals (e.g., American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics) to quantify the degree of dependence heterodox journals have on the mainstream literature.

The results reveal a strikingly sparse network. The overall density of the heterodox journal network is only 0.12, far below the typical densities observed in well‑integrated disciplinary networks (often exceeding 0.30). This low density indicates that heterodox journals cite each other relatively infrequently, suggesting that the field lacks a tightly knit scholarly community. Individual journal analysis shows that most heterodox titles have modest self‑citation rates (often below 15 %) and that a large share of their references—typically 60 % or more—are directed toward mainstream economics outlets. For example, the Journal of Economic Issues and the Review of Radical Political Economics draw the majority of their citations from mainstream sources, underscoring the continued reliance of heterodox scholars on conventional economic theory and methodology.

A notable finding is the strong cross‑disciplinary linkage of heterodox journals with fields outside economics. Feminist Economics exhibits a high proportion of citations to gender studies and sociology journals (e.g., Gender & Society), while Ecological Economics is tightly connected to environmental science and geography publications (e.g., Global Environmental Change). The development‑oriented journal World Development also appears as a hub linking heterodox economics to development studies. These patterns demonstrate that heterodox economics is often pursued through a multidisciplinary lens, integrating social, environmental, and spatial dimensions that are less prominent in mainstream economics.

Network centrality measures further illuminate the structural role of individual journals. The Journal of Economic Issues possesses the highest betweenness centrality (≈0.34), indicating that it frequently lies on the shortest paths between otherwise disconnected clusters and thus functions as a “bridge” between economics and allied disciplines. However, its citation impact remains modest compared with mainstream giants, highlighting a mismatch between structural importance and scholarly prestige. Conversely, journals such as Feminist Economics and Ecological Economics have moderate betweenness but higher eigenvector centrality within their respective sub‑communities, reflecting influence within niche interdisciplinary clusters.

From these observations the authors draw several implications. First, heterodox economics cannot yet be characterised as an integrated specialty; its scholars continue to depend heavily on mainstream economics literature, and intra‑field citation cohesion is weak. Second, the pronounced interdisciplinary connections suggest that heterodox economics may evolve by consolidating its role as a conduit between economics and adjacent social sciences, rather than by forming a closed, self‑referential discipline. Third, editorial policies could be adjusted to encourage more intra‑field referencing and to promote special issues that explicitly target cross‑disciplinary collaboration, thereby strengthening the internal cohesion of the heterodox network.

In conclusion, the study demonstrates how citation‑network analysis can reveal the structural dynamics of a scholarly field that is often perceived as marginal. The heterodox economics journal network is characterised by low density, high reliance on mainstream economics, and strong ties to geography, development studies, gender studies, and environmental science. These findings point to both challenges—namely, the need for greater internal integration—and opportunities, such as leveraging interdisciplinary linkages to carve out a distinctive niche within the broader scientific discourse. Future research could extend the temporal window, incorporate additional journals, and apply dynamic network models to track the evolution of heterodox economics as it potentially moves toward greater cohesion and influence.