My suggestion to fellow economists is that you can refer to my books and working papers. If you want peer review then such references generate that peer review.
My papers have not appeared in peer reviewed journals and there are no citations in peer reviewed journals, except for a favourable review of The Economics Pack by Ron Shone in the Economic Journal, and this friendly reference to me by Olivier Blanchard, since I reminded him that the terms “macro-” and “micro-economics” were coined by Pieter de Wolff. The introduction of those terms is historically not unimportant since it caused a move from Political Economy.
Let me explain this lack of peer review and citation.
Since my dismissal with false accusations from the Dutch CPB in 1991 I have had only short temporary jobs. Each time a different kind of subject with the need to be up and running at some level of complexity. With difficulty some time could be found to write, as was also needed to understand the new subjects. Time for a publication channel was generally lacking.
There was no fixed station with “working papers” from such an institutional environment. Fortunately Bob Parks at St. Louis EconWPA provided an archive, until that was ended by his management. After some years the MPRA archive in Muenchen was created and has become the safe haven. Those papers are basically linked from http://econpapers.hhs.se/RAS/pco170.htm.
My own page basically mentions the books and papers arranged by subject http://thomascool.eu/papengli.html. However, the current economic crisis caused some memo’s that have not been developed into full papers, and those can be found on the crisis page: http://thomascool.eu/Papers/Drgtpe/Crisis-2007plus/Index.html
When I graduated in 1982 it was still the custom in Dutch universities that a Ph.D. represented a serious study by a mature researcher. While I worked at CPB in 1982-1991 this custom was changed so that a Ph.D. became a second stage of education for a younger researcher, and the conclusion of graduate school, and it became the criterion for employment at a Dutch university. Since I lack such a degree, Dutch universities are, basically, closed to me.
In the beginning around 1991 I submitted some papers to economic journals but the referee reviews contained errors and miscomprehension. See for example this paper and its appendices: http://thomascool.eu/Papers/Unemployment/State.html. Labour market specialists do not understand enough about taxation, tax specialists do not understand enough about labour, and so on. Since it was futile to try, I stopped submitting to journals, and concentrated on my books. Since it was hard to find publishers, I basically published those myself though some with help from Dutch University Press.
Because of the economic crisis it seemed fair to try again to submit a paper to a journal. I did this with my paper on the Economic Plan for Europe. This also is the base for my newspaper article in the English / Greek newspaper eKathimerini. It still is the best road that Europe could take. Nevertheless, the editor of that economics journal blocks a decent refereeing process, and dismissively states:
“Dear Thomas, The paper rather looks like a political paper than a research paper. No clear hypothesis is dicussed via empirical testing or theoretical modelling but a bundle of statements are made. Even if some of these statements are interesting this will not be sufficient for a research paper. Kind regards, Jens Boysen-Hogrefe.” (September 27, 2011).
It so happens that dr Boysen-Hogrefe wrote an article about the German labour market “miracle” http://www.ifw-members.ifw-kiel.de/publications/the-german-labour-market-miracle, which “mircacle” can better be understood as a disaster, for it involves predatory pricing with respect to other EU nations, and causes an unbalanced export surplus. Germany here copies Holland, see my http://thomascool.eu/Papers/Drgtpe/Crisis-2007plus/2009-03-31-MacroLesson.pdf. See also Gartner & Merkl at http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/6187.
Thus dr Boysen-Hogrefe (a) does not follow proper editorial processes, (b) misunderstands the labour market and consequences for macro-events, (c) misunderstands what science is. An appeal didn’t have any effect.
This explains why my work cannot be found in the peer reviewed journals. Not for lack of quality but because of censorship and because our society has insufficient mechanisms for correction.