Comments for The RePEc Blog http://blog.repec.org Information about Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) Sun, 03 Jan 2010 02:58:55 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Why Journals? by Ekkehart Schlicht http://blog.repec.org/2009/12/16/why-journals/#comment-384 Ekkehart Schlicht Sun, 03 Jan 2010 02:58:55 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=325#comment-384 I agree with the point, but there is a slight misunderstanding. I have not taken "Journals" as meaning "printed journals." There are many journals that are not printed, but they are ranked, and sometimes highly esteemed, like Berkeley journals. Yet the long-term availability is an issue. But why not preserve everything? Why not have a copyright library for everything? By the way, Thomas Krichel works on establishing a long-term archive for RePEc. Regarding citation scores, I do not agree with those economists. They seem to have internalized this nonsense, and they must, because their career depends on their rankings. I have commented on quality rankings in a comment on <a href="http://www.andrewdyck.com/the-end-for-journals-is-closer-than-we-think/" here</a>. As explained my blog, I don't think we need quality rankings, but rather a mechanism to find out relevant contributions, independent of "quality". My view is that we should care about the progress of economics, not about the problems of hiring committees or, pardon, librarians. These people need and should be given other resources. And last but not least I would not be so sure that Mendel's publication would have survived a refereeing process of the nature encountered in economics to-day (but not in other disciplines to that degree). I agree with the point, but there is a slight misunderstanding. I have not taken “Journals” as meaning “printed journals.” There are many journals that are not printed, but they are ranked, and sometimes highly esteemed, like Berkeley journals. Yet the long-term availability is an issue. But why not preserve everything? Why not have a copyright library for everything? By the way, Thomas Krichel works on establishing a long-term archive for RePEc.

Regarding citation scores, I do not agree with those economists. They seem to have internalized this nonsense, and they must, because their career depends on their rankings.

I have commented on quality rankings in a comment on <a href="http://www.andrewdyck.com/the-end-for-journals-is-closer-than-we-think/" here. As explained my blog, I don’t think we need quality rankings, but rather a mechanism to find out relevant contributions, independent of “quality”. My view is that we should care about the progress of economics, not about the problems of hiring committees or, pardon, librarians. These people need and should be given other resources.

And last but not least I would not be so sure that Mendel’s publication would have survived a refereeing process of the nature encountered in economics to-day (but not in other disciplines to that degree).

]]> Comment on Why Journals? by WiBiblo http://blog.repec.org/2009/12/16/why-journals/#comment-383 WiBiblo Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:37:42 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=325#comment-383 Very good arguments and I agree with most of it. But as an librarian I have one counter-argument: there is still no acceptable solution for the long-time preservation of electronic documents. As long as there is no solution the printed Paper or Book is still the best long-term preservation medium we have. Most people forgot that RePEc or Google Scholar are only portals and not archives or libraries. O.K. they are fantastic and great information intermediators but if the publisher of the Paper deletes the document it is lost for RePEc and for future generations. Sometimes Economics Scientist tell me, that a Paper which is not published in a ranked journal is not worth to archive it in an library. So as a RePEc-Fan You can say, a E-Paper which is not cited in Citec (or not found in RepEc) ist not worth to archive it. But maybe in the future someone founds out (if it has been long-term preserved) that the ideas in this forgotten paper are very good and relevant for future problems. I remember of Gregor Mendels inheritance laws (foundation of genetics) which were forgotten at his time and 16 years after his dead rediscovered (because printed in a journal and archived in libraries). Imagine if a nowadays "Sociologist Mendel" post a Paper with relevant content for Economists on a website which is not ranked very high in Google and he is not aware of MPRA, because he is not interested in Economics??? Very good arguments and I agree with most of it.
But as an librarian I have one counter-argument: there is still no acceptable solution for the long-time preservation of electronic documents. As long as there is no solution the printed Paper or Book is still the best long-term preservation medium we have.
Most people forgot that RePEc or Google Scholar are only portals and not archives or libraries. O.K. they are fantastic and great information intermediators but if the publisher of the Paper deletes the document it is lost for RePEc and for future generations.
Sometimes Economics Scientist tell me, that a Paper which is not published in a ranked journal is not worth to archive it in an library. So as a RePEc-Fan You can say, a E-Paper which is not cited in Citec (or not found in RepEc) ist not worth to archive it.
But maybe in the future someone founds out (if it has been long-term preserved) that the ideas in this forgotten paper are very good and relevant for future problems.
I remember of Gregor Mendels inheritance laws (foundation of genetics) which were forgotten at his time and 16 years after his dead rediscovered (because printed in a journal and archived in libraries). Imagine if a nowadays “Sociologist Mendel” post a Paper with relevant content for Economists on a website which is not ranked very high in Google and he is not aware of MPRA, because he is not interested in Economics???

]]> Comment on RePEc present at ASSA meetings in Atlanta by Statistics delay « The RePEc Blog http://blog.repec.org/2009/11/27/repec-present-at-assa-meetings-in-atlanta/#comment-381 Statistics delay « The RePEc Blog Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:15:47 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=355#comment-381 [...] RePEc present at ASSA meetings in Atlanta [...] [...] RePEc present at ASSA meetings in Atlanta [...]

]]> Comment on Why Journals? by The end for journals is closer than we think | Techonomist http://blog.repec.org/2009/12/16/why-journals/#comment-372 The end for journals is closer than we think | Techonomist Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:46:43 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=325#comment-372 [...] I’m not alone in thinking that the end for journals is near. Both the Economic Logician and Ekkehart Schlicht of the RePEc blog have recently posted about this idea…..in an admittedly more convincing fashion than I would [...] [...] I’m not alone in thinking that the end for journals is near. Both the Economic Logician and Ekkehart Schlicht of the RePEc blog have recently posted about this idea…..in an admittedly more convincing fashion than I would [...]

]]> Comment on International Open Access Week by pepepedraza11 http://blog.repec.org/2009/10/20/international-open-access-week/#comment-370 pepepedraza11 Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:28:52 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/2009/10/20/international-open-access-week/#comment-370 Under Open Access philosophy, Redalyc aims to contribute to the editorial scientific activity produced in and about Ibero-America making available for public consultation the contents of 550 scientific journals of different knowledge areas: <a href="http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/" rel="nofollow">http://redalyc.uaemex.mx</a> Under Open Access philosophy, Redalyc aims to contribute to the editorial scientific activity produced in and about Ibero-America making available for public consultation the contents of 550 scientific journals of different knowledge areas: http://redalyc.uaemex.mx

]]> Comment on Polls on ranking disclosures by rtol http://blog.repec.org/2009/10/15/polls-on-ranking-disclosures/#comment-366 rtol Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:30:00 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=304#comment-366 I see I'm in the minority. I think all data should be disclosed so that it can be used for other purposes. The IDEAS/RePEc team is too busy to do special runs, and the databases are too intricate for outsiders to programme special runs. I see I’m in the minority.

I think all data should be disclosed so that it can be used for other purposes. The IDEAS/RePEc team is too busy to do special runs, and the databases are too intricate for outsiders to programme special runs.

]]> Comment on Polls on ranking disclosures by macchiavelo http://blog.repec.org/2009/10/15/polls-on-ranking-disclosures/#comment-365 macchiavelo Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:35:00 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=304#comment-365 I definitely agree. I think the field rankings are much more important, for example, when students are looking for any kind of program (BA - PhD) in Economics. I definitely agree. I think the field rankings are much more important, for example, when students are looking for any kind of program (BA – PhD) in Economics.

]]> Comment on Polls on ranking disclosures by sterndavidi http://blog.repec.org/2009/10/15/polls-on-ranking-disclosures/#comment-364 sterndavidi Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:25:34 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=304#comment-364 I voted for top 50% but actually the top 20% makes sense to me. At the moment there is only the top 5% for the global and field rankings but the top 20% for countries. Therefore, already everyone in the top 20% in a country can see their national ranking. So it makes sense to me to extend this to the top 20% of the fields and global ranking. I actually think the field ranking is most interesting to extend further as at the moment in my fields (energy and environment) at least there are a lot of people in the top 5% who don't really do much work in this field but are top general economists. Extending the listing to the top 20% might give a better idea of who are some good people in the field. Of course, it would also include me then in the list :) I voted for top 50% but actually the top 20% makes sense to me. At the moment there is only the top 5% for the global and field rankings but the top 20% for countries. Therefore, already everyone in the top 20% in a country can see their national ranking. So it makes sense to me to extend this to the top 20% of the fields and global ranking. I actually think the field ranking is most interesting to extend further as at the moment in my fields (energy and environment) at least there are a lot of people in the top 5% who don’t really do much work in this field but are top general economists. Extending the listing to the top 20% might give a better idea of who are some good people in the field. Of course, it would also include me then in the list :)

]]> Comment on A new initiative on research blogging by RePEc in September 2009 « The RePEc Blog http://blog.repec.org/2009/09/30/a-new-initiative-on-research-blogging/#comment-363 RePEc in September 2009 « The RePEc Blog Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:19:46 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=296#comment-363 [...] A new initiative on research blogging [...] [...] A new initiative on research blogging [...]

]]> Comment on RePEcFB – An integration of your RePEc data into your Facebook profile by RePEc in September 2009 « The RePEc Blog http://blog.repec.org/2009/09/09/repecfb-an-integration-of-your-repec-data-into-your-facebook-profile/#comment-362 RePEc in September 2009 « The RePEc Blog Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:15:51 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=288#comment-362 [...] RePEcFB – An integration of your RePEc data into your Facebook profile [...] [...] RePEcFB – An integration of your RePEc data into your Facebook profile [...]

]]>