RePEc in March 2015

April 6, 2015

What is new in RePEc? A new feature at CitEc, our citation analysis project: you can now choose to receive citation alerts about any economist registered in RePEc. We welcomed the following new RePEc archives: Association for Entreprenorial Spirit Promotion, Danish Rational Economic Agents Model (DREAM), Hungarian Demographic Research Institute, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences, Varna University of Economics, Silesian University, Duncker & Humblot, Hongkong University of Science and Technology. And we counted 597,365 file downloads and 2,154,491 abstract views. As for new thresholds we surpassed over the past month, we can report:

333333333 cumulative abstract views through reporting RePEc services (that is, one third of a billion)
50000 NEP reports disseminated.


RePEc to raise funds through citation boosts

April 1, 2015

RePEc is a volunteer initiative that is run without any source of revenue. The hosting of RePEc services is provided by sponsors who either pay for this hosting or share part of their infrastructure. Over the history of RePEc, however, there have been circumstances where an emergency situation required finding a quick solution where buying hardware or hosting would have been much more efficient that first seeking a sponsor.

For this reason, RePEc is now introducing a way to generate some funds. One problem is that RePEc will always provide all its services for free, so there is no way to provide some exclusive service for a fee. There is one area where we can help with the most common complaint of authors: they are not sufficiently cited. Authors can help there for free, by adding the full references of articles and papers citing their work. CitEc has a convenient and fairly popular form for that. But if you want a boost beyond that, RePEc now offers a way to buy a higher citation count that will be towards the RePEc rankings.

Specifically, this applies to all ranking criteria that use citation counts, except for the H-Index, and the two criteria that count the number of authors citing someone. You can buy a series of modifiers to the base number that is currently published, call it R. You can increase that base by f. Then you can multiply the sum R+f by p. These two enhancement are valid, by default for one month. But you can increase their validity up to L periods, during which they depreciate linearly. This gives you three citation score enhancements you can buy, f, p, and L.

The actual formula that will be used to determine the new score would then be (after some necessary normalization):

CodeCogsEqn

where:
A is the new score,
pi is the multiplicative boost for period i,
fi is the additive boost for period i,
L is the duration boost,
R is the initial score, and
o=√i.

The price of each boost will be determined each month according to demand. To this effect, interested users need to log into this form during the first 15 days of the month to express interest in buying a number of each of the three boosts. The system then determines a unit price for each and they can purchase the boosts during the rest of the month (including adjusting the numbers) at the same address. Note that it is required to log in during the first 15 days to do a purchase.

The new scores will be used for the rankings, and there will be no visible mark that they have been boosted. Of course, a user can go and count the citations on an author’s profile and compare that to the numbers in the rankings (remember not to count self-citations and multiple versions of the same work). The new scores will also count towards the affiliations.


RePEc in February 2015

March 3, 2015

February is a short month, and it shows. Only two institutions opened a RePEc archive: The Berlin Doctoral Program and Queen Mary University of London. We counted 500,870 file downloads and 1,770,813 abstract views. We have added a new ranking which counts up to 10 people per institution, following a survey on this blog.

60000000 cumulative downloads through IDEAS
25000 indexed book chapters
8000 students listed in RePEc Genealogy
3000 advisors listed in RePEc Genealogy


How to optimize an institution’s ranking in RePEc

February 25, 2015

As we will very soon add a new institution ranking (voting on it will soon close. Edit: The new ranking is now live), it is a good opportunity to recap how institutions can optimize how they are getting ranked in RePEc. For the existing rankings, see here.


Get your authors listed, and with proper affiliations
The score of an institution is determined by the authors that declare being affiliated with in. If authors are not registered with the RePEc Author Service or have not declared the institution among their affiliation(s), we cannot count them towards the institutional ranking. Institutions can check who is registered by looking themselves up at EDIRC, RePEc’s institutional directory. Note that authors with several affiliations have to allocate percentages to each, and their scores are distributed according to those shares.
Get your authors to maintain their profiles
Authors are ranked as well, and whatever allows them to optimize their ranking scores works for their home institutions as well. You can follow this blog post on this topic.
Get your publications listed
This applies in particular to working papers. If the local working papers are indexed in RePEc, then local authors can add them to their profiles, and then only can they count towards the institution. Knowing that working papers are downloaded much more frequently than articles, this makes a difference. Also, if an article or book chpater is therwise not available, citations to them can still be captured if there is a working paper version available. Instructions on how to index publications in RePEc are here.
Link to those publications
As the various RePEc services provide listings for your working papers, you can link to them. Some even skip listing them on their website, linking only to RePEc. Two popular sites for that are EconPapers and IDEAS.
Have graduates listed as well
Through the RePEc Genealogy, departments can now list the graduates from their doctoral program. This matters because the performance of graduate programs is one of the factors in determining the rankings. Again, EDIRC has those alumni listed.


RePEc in January 2015

February 3, 2015

We are into a new year and have welcome our first new RePEc archives: New School for Social Research (II), Eurasian Academy of Sciences, Tokyo Center for Economic Research, Universitatea din Craiova, Association of Economic Universities of South and Eastern Europe and the Black Sea Region. We are now polling for a new institution ranking. Also, the RePEc Biblio now accepts reader suggestions for the listed topics, and topic editors can now decide to accept them in their listings of most relevant papers. We counted 523,396 file downloads and 2,195,639 abstract views, which brings us to the thresholds we passed:

1500000 cumulative software component downloads
800000 paper announcements through NEP
20000 book chapters available online


Poll about new RePEc institution ranking

January 26, 2015

The rankings provided by RePEc are becoming increasingly popular. They are far from perfect, though. One frequent criticism is that institution rankings depend on the size of the institution, as they simply add the scores of all affiliated economists. It is unfortunately not possible to offer per-capita rankings, as the registration system does not distinguish between faculty and students. What one could do, however, is to count only the top x people from every institution. The question is what this x should be.

We want to ask the RePEc community to determine this x with the poll below. The vote will be open for a month, the option closest to the median will be selected.

A few technicalities: As economists with multiple affiliations have to set shares for each, those shares will therefore also be used to determine who counts up to x. This means that more than x people will likely count towards the institution’s score. Also, institutions with fewer than x registered economists will not be compensated for the remainder of the allocation.


Enrichment facilities for papers readers

January 19, 2015

This post is the last in a series on the new enrichment facility on Socionet.

When you are logged into the Socionet system and browse a publication that is not one of yours, you will see close to the bottom of the page the following three menus

The first one allows readers, if they are registered authors with publications linked to their personal profiles, to check a paper from the list of own claimed papers and select a taxonomy value at the drop-down list “Relationship type” in such a form

For this use case we support a taxonomy of recommendations or just useful comments that can be provided by a reader  to the author of the browsed paper based on a content of some publication of the reader. The taxonomy has following values:

You can apply software that I used
Your results are analysed in my publication
Your idea/method/model/results are itemized in my publication
Your data/method/model/results are illustrated in my publication
Your results are interpreted in my publication
My data/method/model are better
Your idea/method/model/results are generalized in my publication
A similar problem is discussed in my publication
Your results are refuted in my publication
I received the same results
Your idea/method/model are implemented in my work
Your errors are detected and corrected in my publication

The second menu is called the “Scientific developments and associations with this publications“. It opens the same form. The taxonomy in this case allows a user to specify the development and complement relationships between a user paper and the currently browsed paper. This taxonomy has been already used in some other use cases and has following values:

uses data from
uses method from
uses a model from
uses software from
uses statistics from
details idea/method/model from
generalizes idea/method/model from
implements idea/method/model from
analyzes results from
illustrates results from
interprets results from
corrects errors in
refines results from
refutes results from
develops results from

The third menu option is called the “Professional opinion on this publication“. It allows readers sharing with the community their opinions about the browsed paper. It opens the same form and provides the same taxonomy as described for the use case of the annotating paper’s abstract. But in this case a user does not need to select a text fragment within an a paper’s abstract to open the form.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 554 other followers