How authors can improve their RePEc ranking

October 31, 2014

The main purpose of RePEc is the dissemination of economics research. Over time, various services were added to the bibliographic mission, including rankings of economists according to their publication output. Despite being still experimental (we will see why), these rankings have become quite important in the profession. This post explains how authors can best leverage the various RePEc services to improve their standing in these rankings. The rankings are computed using a number of criteria, each highlighting different aspects of research productivity. The headers below reflect these categories.

Number of works

Several criteria are just counts of works. The difference is that the works are weighted using various impact factors. To best leverage this, it is important that an author has as many works as possible listed in RePEc. This indexing is typically done by the publisher, which would be a publishing house in the case of books, book chapters or articles, or the local research institution for working papers. Over 1700 such publishers currently participate, and more can join by following these instructions. It is all free.

If that does not help, one can upload a working paper version at the Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA). It will be listed as a working paper, not as an article, but at least it is on RePEc. Many publishers allow a version that is prior to the final published version to be disseminated there, you can check on the policies at SHERPA/RoMEO

Finally, only the works that the author has claimed on the RePEc Author Service are counted. Authors get emails when something new may be there, but action by author is required to add this to the profile (very few publishers add a code that puts the work directly into the profile). So check your account on a regular basis, and make sure all the possible variations of your name are listed there, or RePEc cannot find all matches.

Number of pages

This criterion applies only to works published in journals and uses several weighting schemes. But the same principles apply as above: if some article is missing on RePEc, get the publisher to participate. Sometimes the publisher is actually participating but is not indexing that particular journal, volume, issue or article. Complain with the publisher, not RePEc. Any page on a RePEc service associated with that publisher has a contact email address for such purposes. Complain there as well if there is an error in the listing for any of your works.

Note that some journals do not provide page numbers. It is therefore not possible to count pages in such cases.

Number of citations

Again, these counts are weighted in various ways. The basis are the citations discovered by the CitEc project. This is likely where the data is the most experimental as some publishers do not allow access to full texts to extract references or link to an intersticial page before the full text. Authors can help here, though, by supplying reference lists. There is a form that asks for all references of an articles, not just those that cite the author. The hope is that this will help complete more rapidly the database, and this gives everyone the opportunity to contribute to a public good. Over 1000 authors have helped so far.

Note that matching references to documents in RePEc is a difficult exercise and pairs that fall in a grey zone are sent to the RePEc Author Service for authors to verify. So check from time to time whether there is something waiting for you there.

It can also help to consolidate different versions of the same work. This is done automatically if the title is identical and the author has all versions in the profile. If the titles differ, this form allows to establish the links. Also, encourage also those who cite you to be registered, as two criteria use this information.

Finally, we cannot count citations to works that are not listed in RePEc. If the article is not listed, getting a working paper version listed will help.

Abstract views and downloads

We can only count what is going through the participating RePEc services. For example, a link from an author’s homepage to a full text on the publisher’s website cannot be captured because it did not transit through RePEc. Thus, either provide a link to the author’s profile from IDEAS or EconPapers, or put a link to abstract pages from these services. Put a link to the profile page in the email signature. Note also that working papers generate many more downloads than articles. So, keep your working papers in your profile if you publish an article!

Unfortunately, the temptation to manipulate these numbers is big. Hence, a number of safeguards have been put in place: repeatedly downloading a paper will count only once, for example. Tell your class to download your papers and you will earn a zero. More details (but not too many) can be found on the site that published these statistics, LogEc.

Co-authorship network

Two criteria are based on how central an author is in the co-authorship network. Details can be found at CollEc. To improve one’s score here, one needs of course to get co-authors to be listed on RePEc with a profile (and their co-authors, too).

Student advising

This looks at how good an author’s doctoral students are performing with respect to all the criteria above. Thus, if one has been advising students, one needs to make sure this is recorded in RePEc. If the students have a profile, head to the RePEc Genealogy and complete their entry in the academics family tree of economics. Or do it for your advisor.

Final thoughts

One may be disappointed that it is a little bit of work to ensure that one is properly taken into account in the RePEc rankings. RePEc is an crowd-sourced project, it thus relies on the contributions of the community, and has done so, we think successfully, since 1997. If everyone pitches in a little (or more), we can make it even better. And if this helps improve one’s ranking, even better!

Of course, there is also the fact that writing better papers helps for one’s ranking, too.

Advertisements

New linkages with RePEc

October 23, 2014

In my previous post, I have alluded to the fact that the value of RePEc comes from linkages between identified elements. In the next post, I will set out a working example of linkage usage in the CollEc project. In this post, I’m discussing a direction for future work. It’s about creating new linkage type. Much of this is already implemented at SocioNet. SocioNet is a RePEc service that originated in Russia in the 1990s. They hold RePEc data and combine it with local data.

Recently, login data from the RePEc Author Service has become available to other RePEc service via a protocol known as openID. Soon RAS-registered users will be able to login to SocioNet without having to create a SocioNet account, just simply by using their RAS account. SocioNet then knows that you are an identified author. When you are logged into SocioNet in this way, SocioNet knows that you have written a bunch of papers, that I will now call “your papers”. Based on the knowledge of your authorship, it can assume that you know your work and the surrounding literature. It can give you get a personalized web interface based on RAS data. In that interface you will be able to conveniently supply further details about your work.

First, SocioNet can enquire about the role of your collaborators in a given research paper. In conventional abstracting and indexing data, all contributors to a paper are placed into a list of authors. But usually, the co-authors each have different roles in the papers writing process. You can indicate the roles using a simple controlled vocabulary.

Second, using SocioNet you will be able to provide linkages between papers. One of the linked papers has to be yours. The other paper may be yours, but it may not be.

Let’s look at cases where you wrote both papers that you want to link. One thing you may want to tell users is how papers relate to each other. So you can say that one paper is an abridged version of the other, that a third paper is a development of the fourth. Eventually, such relationships could be picked up by RePEc services to create commented links between your papers. This is particularly useful if you have a version of a paper you don’t like any more. You can point users to a better version of the paper.

When you only wrote one of the papers, the other paper has to be on the reference list of one of your papers. In that case you can bring in a vocabulary containing terms like “develops model from”, or “uses software from” or “uses data from”. There are two aspects to these document to document relations.

One is that guessing the context of a citation is really difficult using the automated ways in which the citation is actually being produced. If users can take a small amount of time to classify citations according to a simple menu than we would be able to get more valuable information about the structure of ideas across papers.

The other is that building relationship with sources of data and software would advertise the data and software and promote the sharing of these resources. RePEc already works with software.  It would be great if it could work with datasets, i.e. as and when reusable datasets would be considered as publications in their own right, then users could point to a dataset used in the publication right in the metadata. It could then be possible to create a list of all the publications using a certain dataset. That would be a great way to unify papers on a certain topic and of course, to promote the dataset maintenance as an additional academic endeavour.


RePEc in September 2014

October 3, 2014

Quite a few new developments this month: All RePEc sites hosted at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis are now encrypted (“https”), allowing a more secure user experience. You can now add a picture, social networks and areas of interest to your citation profile at My CitEc. The random paper finder on IDEAS now uses citation weighting. And the dormant NEP-AFR report (New Economics Papers on Africa) has been revived. Not bad for a single month.

We counted 491,312 file downloads and 1,797,609 abstract views in September 2014. NEP got another record traffic month, possibly helped by the fact that NEP reports are now available on Twitter. We have also welcomed the following newly participating RePEc archives: Association of African Young Economists, Universität Duisburg-Essen (III), Université d’Orléans, University of St. Andrews (II), Bank of Japan (II), University of Limerick, Syddansk Universitet, Universität Kiel, IQRA University, Multinational Finance Society. As to the thresholds we passed:

80000000 cumulative downloads from reporting RePEc services
1500000 indexed documents available online
750000 paper announcements through NEP
750 NEP-ALL reports