RePEc is entirely driven by volunteers, who are also users. Most current volunteers came to RePEc because either they wanted to help with a current project or because they had some idea they wanted implemented in RePEc. We are opening this suggestion box for several reasons: as way to encourage feedback, to encourage more volunteers to come forward and pick a suggestion, and finally have users and RePEc team members discuss the proposed suggestions.
At RePEc, we like to be open. After all, we are creating open bibliographies using open source software, and we encourage open access. RePEc is there for you, so tell us how you want it to be. So, make your suggestion in the comment section below.
Christian Zimmermann
Bill Goffe
Kit Baum
Jose Manuel Barrueco
Thomas Krichel
Ekkehart Schlicht
repecblogguest
May 23, 2009 at 2:18 am
It would be nice to get full stats on any member. Currently this is only available through the links that are e-mailed to members or for the world’s top 5% of economists we can get their ranking in each category. At least give the same ranking according to each criterion for the top 20% in each country.
May 23, 2009 at 12:45 pm
To sterndavidi: I am afraid that many people would unregister once it is revealed that their stats are not that good. I am more interested in having more people participating than exposing full statistics.
June 7, 2009 at 4:46 pm
There should be a Facebook application that allows one to have a link to one’s IDEAS and/or Econpapers page. So many economists are now on Facebook. And RePEc profiles could also include a link back to Facebook.
June 8, 2009 at 1:22 pm
For users outside of the top 5%, it’d be nice to know about others with similar ranks. Maybe 10-20 people immediately above and below each user. For people who are not at research institutions and who are unlikely to crack the top 5% this would be a useful way of seeing people with similar profiles.
June 10, 2009 at 9:18 am
economiclogic: I think this is a brilliant idea that could be discussed further in the RePEc group at facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=102538583896
June 10, 2009 at 11:05 am
ricardo97: This is an interesting suggestion. However, I am afraid that it would not be as informative as expected. Indeed, beyond the top 5%, 20 closely ranked economists are usually separated by minute differences which makes ranking among them mostly random. I do not see what this would bring.
June 10, 2009 at 1:05 pm
The usefulness of looking at similarly ranked people is that they are similarly ranked–whether a bit above or a bit below–rather than worrying about being a minute bit better or worse than them. The point of my suggestion is to have some sense of one’s peers not to play a one-upsmanship game.
To avoid people overinterpreting the minute differences, would it be possible to simply report, say, 20 similarly ranked economists without an indication of which ones are ranked higher and which ones are ranked lower?
June 10, 2009 at 4:00 pm
ricardo97: That is certainly feasible and can be added to the personalized ranking analysis. I have put this on my to-do list.
June 11, 2009 at 7:39 am
Here’s another idea. How about something like a crosstab search in IDEAS. At the moment we can get a list of everyone working in Energy Economics. I can also get a list of the top 20% of economists in Australia. How about a list of all economists in Australia (without ranks as we discussed above) and lists of say everyone working on energy economics in Australia (the latter is more useful than the first for Australia).
June 11, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Hello everyone,
I recently noticed that the bibtex file on IDEAS does not contain an abstract and keywords on an item. This revelation inspired me to make a comment on this suggestion box because I strongly believe that including these items will be very beneficial for those who use referencing software (allows you to remember why you were interested in that item in the first place). In addition this update will allow other institutions to quickly compile relevant information on an author and his work. I really do hope that this update is available soon.
June 12, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I can certainly add abstract and keywords to this features on IDEAS, and for the other bibliographic formats as well. Before doing so, however, I want to make sure this would not interfere with the operations of those who already use this and may suddenly get more than what they bargained for.
June 13, 2009 at 7:45 pm
[...] Suggestion box [...]
June 30, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Abstract and keyword fields are now available. It will take a few days until they are actually populated with data (where available, of course).
September 9, 2009 at 8:57 pm
[...] Suggestion box [...]