December 4, 2013
The big news this month is that we reached a significant mark in terms of traffic. Since we started counting, and for those RePEc services that report these statistics, RePEc has facilitated 300 millions abstract views and 75 million full text downloads. This was after counting 639,213 file downloads and 2,764,484 abstract views last month. We also brought the number of countries hosting a RePEc archive to 80, with the following additions: Belarusian Economic Research and Outreach Center, Istanbul Commerce University, Sakarya University, CEPAL, UNU-MERIT, Econjournals.net, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, Bucharest University, Kingston University, Université Paris-Dauphine, Pak Publishing Group, Editions NecPlus, Edward Elgar. Finally the fantasy league got off to a good start, with already 163 players.
Also, RePEc will be present at the ASSA meeting in Philadelphia, the largest gathering of economists. You will be able to find us at the booth of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in the exhibitors’ hall, where we can explain the various RePEc services, take suggestions and answer questions.
And now for the full list of thresholds we reached:
300000000 cumulative abstract views
75000000 cumulative downloads
900000 documents claims in author profiles
80 countries hosting RePEc archives
November 29, 2013
We have occasionally been asked what the most popular web pages are on RePEc. This is somewhat difficult to determine, as there are many RePEc services, and they may log traffic in different ways. Only the counting of abstract views and downloads is treated uniformly, at LogEc. The list below should thus be taken with a grain of salt, and may be subject to measurement error and seasonal factors. In fact, one page is missing and should be somewhere in the top of the list, the EconPapers search page. Here we go:
- IDEAS search result
- IDEAS home
- RePEc Author Service home
- IDEAS journal list
- IDEAS paper series list
- IDEAS author list
- Top authors
- Top journals by simple impact factor
- Top economics departments
- Fantasy league
- EDIRC home
- IDEAS advanced search page
- EDIRC alphabetical listing
- RePEc Author Service automatic suggestions
- IDEAS book series list
- EconPapers home
- MyIDEAS login
- Top US economics departments
- Top young economists
- Top institutions
- IDEAS JEL classification home
- CitEc home
A surprisingly large number of links to the rankings are in the list above. That should not indicate that economists are obsessed with rankings. IDEAS for example, has about two million web pages. The ranking pages actually represent only a small fraction of total traffic.
November 19, 2013
RePEc collects a lot of metadata about publications in economics and finance, their authors, citations and more. All this data is provided by volunteers with the understanding that it is freely available for non-commercial uses while there is no explicit licence for the data.
By the very nature of RePEc, the data is highly decentralized and may be somewhat difficult to get to, at least for a novice. To this end, we have now a document that should help the potential user getting to it. It is not straightforward, and the data needs substantial massaging for the user to make good use of it. We hope this will be useful, though.
November 4, 2013
This has been a busy month. We have introduced a new set of rankings which are based on publications from the last 10 years only. We now have a fantasy league that allows economists to pretend leading an academic economics department. We got a large crop of new participating archives, namely: Kyoto University, University of Leeds, National Tax Association, University of Miskolc, Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), Librello publishing house, Ethiopian Development Research Institute, Wageningen University, “Nicolae Titulescu” University of Bucharest, Tohoku University, DePauw University, Nepal Rastra Bank, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. We have counted 636,339 file downloads and 2,762,688 abstract views. Finally, these are the thresholds we passed.
6000 listed series and journals
1600 participating archives
October 28, 2013
Following a successful beta testing, a fantasy league is now live on IDEAS. It all started with an April Fool’s post on this blog that many found to be a great idea. We will see now whether this is true.
As we do not have a publishing season, and publishing is very slow in economics, the rules had to be adapted from the standard fantasy leagues in other “sports.” They may need to be amended in the future, but players will be alerted well ahead of any changes. And if you are uncomfortable with being traded in a fantasy league, you can opt out.
Have fun playing!
October 20, 2013
RePEc has been publishing rankings of various sorts for over a decade. While many of them can still be considered experimental due to limitations in the data, they have had an impact on the evaluations of institutions, economists and journals in quite a few instances. Gradually, these rankings have been expanded to cover more and more aspects of academic life, as well as slicing them by fields, geography, gender and age. These rankings have typically considered all publications listed in RePEc. This can be a disadvantage for younger economists and publication series (although there are criteria that discount citations by age, for example).
We are now introducing a new set of rankings that limit themselves to publications in the last 10 years. For example, to compute an impact factor for a journal, only articles published in the last 10 years are considered. For an economist, anything published over 10 years ago is dismissed (unless the article version falls within 10 years). The ranking page has links to all those new 10-year rankings.
A few caveats: As samples are smaller than for the general rankings, the 10-year rankings will be more volatile, and any measurement error will be larger. For this reason, the 10-year rankings are not computed for fields and geographies. Also, any criterion that is based on recursive factors will still need some time to stabilize as they have to go through several iterations for them to converge, and they will never fully converge, as new data keeps coming in and data will have to be dropped every year. Finally, we cannot count research from publishers who do not supply publication years.
October 11, 2013
The decentralized nature of metadata collection in RePEc can make it challenging for users to understand where to ask for corrections to incorrect data. In particular, in the vast majority of the cases, asking the RePEc team to amend something is not the solution even though this is the first reaction of users. To facilitate this process, we now have a page on IDEAS that describes whom to address requests for corrections. In most cases these are the metadata publishers, but there are exceptions.