February was a short but active month. We welcomed the following new archives: Humanity Only, Universidad de Cuenca, IntechOpen, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę “Cognitione”, Centraal Planbureau (Netherlands), Università Cattolica “Nostra Signora del Buon Consiglio” (Albania), New Zealand Centre for Macroeconomics, Ural State University of Economics, Bingöl University, HEC Montréal (II). We counted 442,943 file downloads and 1,814,905 abstract views from participating services. And we passed the following milestones:
800,000 book downloads
750,000 working papers available for download
400,000 working papers disseminated through NEP
50,000 book chapters available for download
40,000 books indexed
12,000 items mentioned in blogs and captured on EconAcademics.org
New features of the month: RePEc economists who registered their Twitter handle with RePEc are now automatically added to field and country specific Twitter lists. See this RePEc Blog post for details. And we have a new NEP report: NEP-WAR (War and Peace). We also welcomed a few more archives: Development Bank of Nigeria, Economic and Financial innovation (Ukraine), Érudite, Zibeline International, King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center, Universidade de Lisboa, Latin American Real Estate Society. We counted 436,706 file downloads and 1,717,925 abstract views. Finally, we reached the following milestones:
7,000,000 paper downloads through NEP
2,800,000 listed items
600,000 articles with extracted references
500 first NEP report to reach 500 Twitter followers
Twitter is a social media forum that facilitates discussions on all sorts of topics, including economics. Within this large universe, it may be difficult for economists to find who to follow and who to converse with. Indeed, some very interesting conversation do take place, and contrarily to popular opinion, Twitter can be a very civil and professional environment.
To help with this, RePEc has taken various initiatives:
All NEP reports, which disseminate new working papers in about 100 fields of economics, are available through email, RSS and Twitter. Visit the NEP homepage for a listing, or if you just want the Twitter accounts, see a compilation here.
RePEc provides directories of economists on Twitter. These directories are assembled by country and by field (following the NEP model). In addition, there is a directory of female economists, and several for different types of institutions (like central banks or liberal arts colleges). The big directory is available here, to see the others click on the “more listings” tab. Another tab explains how to get listed.
All members of the above directories with public Twitter accounts are also automatically members of the corresponding Twitter lists. This allows to easily follow the activity of the economists in a particular country or field. The Twitter lists are linked above each of the directories.
IDEAS allows easily quoting on Twitter. If you click on the Twitter icon on any abstract page, this creates a Twitter post with the title of the paper and an image containing its abstract. When discussing research on Twitter, it is generally a good idea to link to a RePEc page instead of directly to the publisher. In case the reader cannot access this document, RePEc may offer alternatives. See this RePEc Blog post for more details.
In its 22nd year of operation, RePEc is still growing healthily. Almost a quarter million new research items have been added in the course of the year, and we should be surpassing 3 millions sometime in 2019. In part, this growth was made possible thanks to newly participating archives, 61 of them, putting us over 2000 RePEc archives. We collect traffic statistics from four RePEc services, EconPapers, IDEAS, NEP and Socionet. They reported for the year 104,603,252 full-text downloads and 420,281,818 abstract views (after considerable vetting, well over 90% of traffic is from robots). This is not counting all the other services using the data made available by RePEc. And RePEc has also performed various upgrades to its services:
IDEAS and EDIRC have being completely redesigned.
MyIDEAS now has the ability to send weekly email digests for what users track.
Rankings saw various additions, principally those tracking only the last 10 years of publication and the 10 best authors per institution.
CitEc has improved citation extraction and increased its scope.
Various behind the scenes improvement, in particular for NEP.
There is much more to come in 2019. Watch out for news, or even better, participate as a volunteer!
RePEc saw good traffic for a month of December, with 402,760 file downloads and 2,055,763 abstract views. We welcomed a few new archives: University of Cambridge (V), Indian Institute for Geo Economic Studies, University of Warwick (II), Better Advances Press, Red Investigadores de Economía, South Asia Watch on Trade, Economics and Environment (SAWTEE), Global Social Sciences Review (GSSR). And we reached the following milestones:
1,200,000 new paper announcements through NEP
100,000 user-contributed changes to the RePEc Genealogy
Last month, we counted 497,856 file downloads and 2,031,700 abstract views on reporting RePEc services. We weclomed a good bunch of new RePEc archives: Financial Research Institute (Moscow), Budapest Business School, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), Athens Institute for Education and Research, African Finance and Economic Association, Institut national d’études démographiques (INED), Red Investigadores de Economía (Colombia). We also added a small feature that allows to correct how we infer their gender. This can be found on the ranking analysis link they get in their monthly email. And finally we reached one milestone:
RePEc is always looking for ways to offer more useful services to the Economics community. One suggestion that we receive on a regular basis is to make is possible to add public comments, “user notes”, about the papers disseminated by RePEc. In this blog post, we offer a proposal for such a feature on IDEAS, with proposed rules and a poll to see whether the Economics community would be interested in this new feature.
This should give the opportunity to readers of the papers to offer their comments, for authors to provide clarifications, for conference discussants to provide their thoughts to a wider audience, and even for referees to make public their reports, if they wish so.
Rules of user notes on IDEAS
A RePEc user account (RePEc Author Service) with clear identification is necessary to post a user note.
There is a delay of a day between the creation of an account and the privilege of posting.
Posts retain the name of the poster even after deletion of the account.
Posts should remain professional and on topic. Readers can report abuses to moderators (no registration required). The text of moderated posts will become invisible, with poster name still visible and reason for moderation declared. Posters can appeal moderation decisions.
Registered authors and previous posters in a thread will be alerted about a new user note. Authors have the opportunity to opt out of alerts for the associated paper or all their papers.
A bulletin board is available to see new user notes. Boards are also available by subfield (if no subfield can be determined automatically by JEL codes or NEP reports, the first poster can set the subfield).
A user note posted for one version of a paper will be visible for all versions of that paper.
User notes are in plain text, with no attachments and no links, of at most 5,000 characters. Posters can thread several posts, though.
There will be no counting of points, likes, upvotes, scores, or other games associates with this.
This set of rules can change as experience warrants, after consultation with users.
This poll is open until 26 December 2018, midnight CST.
Addendum: The poll is now closed. We will work over the next months to put the user-note feature in place.
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.