http://blog.repec.org Information about Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) Tue, 07 May 2013 15:56:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ http://blog.repec.org/2013/04/29/proposed-changes-to-repec-rankings-up-for-vote/#comment-2880 Tue, 07 May 2013 15:56:20 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=932#comment-2880 My suggestion to overcome citation network bias:
use the genealogy-information to down-weight citations received from academic ‘relatives’ such as supervisors, brothers, sisters, uncles, cousins, etc.
In other words: attach larger weights to references given by ‘strangers’.

]]> http://blog.repec.org/2013/04/29/proposed-changes-to-repec-rankings-up-for-vote/#comment-2879 Tue, 07 May 2013 15:50:36 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=932#comment-2879 quod siat demonstrandum!!
so far, you and the ‘others’ are lacking any proof of such a statement.

]]> http://blog.repec.org/2013/04/29/proposed-changes-to-repec-rankings-up-for-vote/#comment-2878 Tue, 07 May 2013 12:06:15 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=932#comment-2878 As mentioned by others, this is even easier to manipulate.

]]> http://blog.repec.org/2013/04/29/proposed-changes-to-repec-rankings-up-for-vote/#comment-2877 Tue, 07 May 2013 11:54:34 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=932#comment-2877 …. leaving many other ways of manipulating and biasing citation indices, which undoubtedly exist (see my other comments).
What was your suggestion concerning outside reach, Christian? We are still missing an answer ….

]]> http://blog.repec.org/2013/04/29/proposed-changes-to-repec-rankings-up-for-vote/#comment-2876 Tue, 07 May 2013 11:43:56 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=932#comment-2876 Self-citations do not count on RePEc!

]]> http://blog.repec.org/2013/04/29/proposed-changes-to-repec-rankings-up-for-vote/#comment-2875 Tue, 07 May 2013 11:16:19 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=932#comment-2875 Any citation index can be easily manipulated: e.g., academic indices can be influenced through self-citations. Maybe we all have to overcome our idea of objectively and quantitatively measuring academic performance.

]]> http://blog.repec.org/2013/04/29/proposed-changes-to-repec-rankings-up-for-vote/#comment-2874 Tue, 07 May 2013 07:52:35 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=932#comment-2874 Newspaper articles & the like can easily be manipulated: say something controversial (e.g. the earth is flat) and you get plenty of notice. Keep it academic.

]]> http://blog.repec.org/2013/04/29/proposed-changes-to-repec-rankings-up-for-vote/#comment-2873 Mon, 06 May 2013 14:16:21 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=932#comment-2873 Citation in what ever plaform gives the cited individual the zeal and ethusiasm to contribute more to knowledge. Therefore all citations should be encouraged and ranked appropriately.

]]> http://blog.repec.org/2013/04/29/proposed-changes-to-repec-rankings-up-for-vote/#comment-2867 Sat, 04 May 2013 16:00:04 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=932#comment-2867 Other biases in citing are by a) hierarchy and b) gender, based on my own experience. That means: full professors are cited more often than young researchers, and men are cited more than women. Honestly, I think that women researchers are strongly discriminated when it comes to citations. One reason might be that men have problems with acknowledging that also women researchers are innovative.

]]> http://blog.repec.org/2013/04/29/proposed-changes-to-repec-rankings-up-for-vote/#comment-2865 Sat, 04 May 2013 12:53:03 +0000 http://blog.repec.org/?p=932#comment-2865 ….and citations among economists are biased by citation networks, leading to citations disregarding content relevance. I have witnessed the omission of groundbreaking articles because the author was from a competing group ;-) ….so what alternative measure of ‘outside relevance’ would you propose? newspaper-articles authorships? blog-authorships?

]]>