The new feature of the month is that the weekly NEP reports disseminating new economics papers are now available through Twitter. NEP is on a tear, with record downloads from this service despite the usual Summer lull. This cannot be said of other RePEc service, a subject that will be addressed in an upcoming blog post. For August, we counted and certified 415,405 file downloads and 1,495,049 abstract views and we welcomed the followed new participating archives: Higher Education Press, Sobra México, EcoMod, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies (IX), Centro de Estudios Públicos, Beijing Institute of Technology, Instituto de Alto Estudios Nacionales (Ecuador), The Economics and Social Development Organization.
While traffic has been in the traditional Summer lull (388,850 file downloads and 1,559,593 abstract views in July 2014), things have been surprisingly active on RePEc. We welcomed 15 new RePEc archives: Ekonomik Yaklasim Dernegi, History of Economic Ideas, Cuadernos de Economía, Architexturez Imprints, Synergiz, University of Pennsylvania (II), INRA (III), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Southern California (II), Canadian Centre for Health Economics, Ekonomika Society of Economists Niš, Glasgow Caledonian University, HETFA Research Institute, Società Italiana di Economia Pubblica, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration (II).
These, and the existing RePEc archives, have contributed to an unprecedented inflow of newly indexed material: 7,401 papers and 27,768 articles. This allowed the RePEc holdings to surpass 1 million articles and 1.6 million documents. Also, the last 100,000 new documents were indexed in a record time, six months and two days.
Finally IDEAS added a new feature, with backlinks from papers and articles listed on the Economics Replication Wiki. Now on to the thresholds we reached.
3000000 cumulative book abstract views
1600000 indexed documents
1000000 indexed articles
2000 indexed journals
2000 contributors to the RePEc Genealogy
We got a good crop of new participating archives this month: Italian Association for the Study of Economic Asymmetries, National Association of Romanian Valuers, Association of Private Enterprise Education, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, VU University Amsterdam, Centre for Macroeconomics (London), Small Arms Data Observatory, Şcoala Naţională de Studii Politice şi Administrative, Journal of Studies in Dynamics and Change, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA).
Traffic was rather low this month, though: 416,168 file downloads and 1,728,798 abstract views. This was in part due to a larger than usual share of raw traffic we had to eliminate because it looked suspicious. Unfortunately, these checks take longer and longer because we see more and more creative and puzzling things in our logs.
And we reached the following thresholds:
125000000 cumulative article abstract views
900000 listed articles are available online
500000 listed papers are available online
10000 utils used in transactions in the fantasy league market
What was new in RePEc in May? We announced significant enhancements to the series and author pages on CitEc, our citation extraction project. Also, we have just added a ranking of European economics departments. We have also welcomed the following new RePEc archives: Alma Mater University of Sibiu, University of Warsaw, Asia Pacific Institute of Research, University of West Virginia (II), Instytut Badañ Gospodarczych, Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány, Principled Societies Project, University of Rijeka, Maryland Institute of Research, Universidade de Vigo (II), French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. We counted 549,441 file downloads and 2,350,152 abstract views.
Finally, we reached these thresholds:
5000000 cumulative software item abstract views
600000 cited documents
300000 working papers with extracted references
750 NEP reports dispatched to field editors
A major threshold was reached a few days ago with 40,000 authors registered on the RePEc Author Service (not counting over 10,000 non-authors). For comparison, the membership of the American Economic Association, the largest society of economists, is about 13,000.
We have welcomed the following new particpating archives in RePEc: Council for Budget Responsibility, Università di Roma Sapienza (II), WISE, Indiana State University, Canon Institute for Global Studies, Pepperdine University, Macrothink Institute, Credit and Capital Markets, Asian Development Bank, German Institute for Japanese Studies, Universitat de Barcelona (II), Analítika. We also counted 593,545 file downloads and 2,794,821 abstract views, only for the RePEc services that deliver such statistics.
This brings us to the various thresholds we reached over the last month:
After a record crop, the last month was unusually calm in terms of new RePEc archives: Corvinus University Budapest, Università Bocconi, African Finance and Economic Association, and Chiang Mai University. We counted 616,841 file downloads and 2,692,082 abstract views. While these numbers are on the high side, this did not bring us any particular threshold, except that we reached 50000 registered people (not all of them authors) in the RePEc Author Service. That is it for a very short post this month.
Likely the most frequent request RePEc is getting is an author who wants us to add some publications to the database and wonders why our “spider” has not picked them up. The second most frequent is a publisher wondering why RePEc is neglecting to disseminate its output. The problem is that this is not at all the way RePEc functions. This short post provides the basics of how the metadata (the data describing the research documents) gets into RePEc.
The principle is that metadata comes directly from the providers. By providers we mean commercial publishers for their books and journals, or university departments for their working papers, or research centers for their papers, or policy institutions for their various publications. Thus, RePEc does not have a spider that surfs the entire Internet and tries to infer what it is that it stumbles upon. Rather, RePEc knows exactly where to look for the information that has been formatted in a way to optimize its usefulness. And if an author finds some publications are missing, it is either because the provider is not (yet) participating in RePEc, in which case it can follow these instructions, or because the provider has incomplete data, in which case a technical contact is listed on the RePEc page of the relevant journal or series and can help.
Why is RePEc data collection organized in such a way? We want RePEc to be free for all, so it needs to be set up in a way that does not generate costs. Thus, we put the burden of indexing on those who benefit the most from it, the providers. And close to 1700 are willing to do so. Any remaining central duties are picked up by the RePEc team.