The availability of publication and citation databases facilitate construction of rankings of economics journals, economists, and departments. Mainstream economists typically find the research questions and methods of heterodox economists dubious, and this reaction creates a bias against heterodox research in peer review, which extends to traditional bibliometric rankings. University administrators interested in improving the quality of the economics department, as conventionally measured, will see heterodox economists as a liability. But establishing the bias of conventional metrics of scholarship quality and the consequences of these biases does not establish the comparable worth of the contributions of dissident economists. This special issue seeks innovated ways to document the relative quality of the contributions of dissident economists.