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.
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
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.
Let us first discuss what is new from last month. First, IDEAS changed its website layout to be more friendly for our users on mobile users. Other RePEc websites will soon follow suit. Second, the NEP-CWA (Central and Western Asia) has been revived. And third, we welcome the following new RePEc archives: University of Tennessee, KSP Journals, Davidson College, Instytut Badañ Strukturalnych, Montana State University, Institute of Agroecology and Environmental Management. For the set of RePEc services that share such statistics, we counted 497,673 file downloads and 1,901,689 abstract views in December 2014.
This all helped us pass the following thresholds last month:
1700000 items listed in RePEc
600000 items with extracted and matched references
500000 working papers with abstracts
400000 cited articles
300000 working papers with JEL codes
1750 participating archives
1000 followers on NEP twitter feeds
Now, what have we acheived in 2014? For one, our archive maintainers (of which there are 122 more) have added a ton of material: over 200’000 works, or an increase of 14%. While 54’000 working papers and 220 new series were added, the big push came from journals with 266 new journals and almost 150’000 new articles indexed in RePEc. Over 4’000 authors are newly registered. We counted 25 million abstract views and over 6 million downloads. The RePEc team has also worked hard to improve the user experiences, making the website more accessible for mobile devices as well as secure, and adding many features: NEP reports are now available through Twitter, CitEc added many new features, and we are now working with the Replication Wiki.
While in some ways one can consider RePEc to be a mature project, it dates back to 1997 in its current form, it is still surprising how much growth it is experiencing. And there is still a lot of potential, especially in terms of enhancing the information disseminated by RePEc. We will see more of that over the next year.
As more and more people are using phones and tablets to surf the web and in particular to consult the RePEc websites, IDEAS has just moved to a new layout that is more friendly to such devices. Specifically, the display adjusts to the size of the browser window. We hope this will make it easier for our numerous mobile users. Other RePEc websites will follow.
Note that some IDEAS pages will still show the old layout. It takes some time to convert 2 million pages. If anything looks amiss, contact us! Or visit us at the ASSA 2015 meeting in Boston, at the St. Louis Fed booth in the exhibitor hall.
We have a new feature! Socionet is adding a facility that allows authors to enhance the records af publications. An ongoing series of blog posts is detailing all what can be done at Socionet. Also, RePEc will be at the ASSA meetings in Boston, January 3-5, 2015. Visit us at the St. Louis Fed booth in the exhibitors hall to chat with us, learn something or make suggestions. Documentation (and gifts) will be available.
Here are the institutions that started a RePEc archive in the past month: Action IS1104, Iqra University, Tennessee State University, Bruno Kessler Foundation, Universidad del Desarrollo, Universidad de Costa Rica, University of Rijeka. For EconPapers, IDEAS, NEP and Socionet, we counted 592,234 file downloads and 2,219,287 abstract views. And we passed the following thresholds:
250000000 cumulative abstract views on IDEAS (that is a quarter billion)
15000000 cumulative downloads through EconPapers
600000 listed working papers
75000 NEP subscriptions
No new features to announce for RePEc in the last month, but some are in the works for November, as a continuing series of blog posts is indicating. October is usually the busiest month on RePEc, likely because this is the period where all universities are in session and no major holidays keep people from looking for economic literature. Accordingly, traffic has been up, to 580,787 file downloads and 2,101,037 abstract views for the reporting RePEc services. In terms of content, we reached to major marks: 4,000 working papers series, and 1 millions works listed in registered author profiles. This was in part facilitated by the fowwling new RePEc archives: Economists for Peace and Security, Kochi University of Technology, Journal of Economics and Political Economy, Institute for Business and Finance Research, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI, Japan).
Welcome to the RePEc blog. We, the RePEc team, discuss here the workings of RePEc and seek input from the community on how we can improve. We also want to give more volunteers opportunity to be part of this project and provide valuable services to the profession. Finally, we also discuss issues about the dissemination of research in Economics.
To post a comment, you need to be registered with this blog with a valid email address. Your first comment may be delayed for verification purposes. Note: you may need to create a new account if your old one predated the move to our new blog service.