RePEc in November 2016

December 3, 2016

The RePEc rankings got a tiny addition, top authors by number of Twitter followers, which immediately received a lot of attention … on Twitter. More importantly, we have a new NEP report, NEP-GEN (Gender Economics). We have welcome the following newly participating RePEc archives: University fo Cape Town, Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas Publicas de Bolivia, Universidad Michoana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo (I+II), Historical Household Budgets Project, LAREQ Press. We have counted 560,219 file downloads and 2,223,007 abstract views in November 2016. And finally we have reached the following milestones:

400,000 working papers with extracted references
100,000 monthly downloads through NEP
4,500 listed working paper series


RePEc in October 2016

November 4, 2016

We have reached two major milestones in the past month: there are now over 2 millions works indexed in RePEc with links to their full texts on-line, and our citation project CitEc has extracted over 25 million references. In addition, with have a new ranking of economists and of institutions covering Latin American and the Caribbean. We counted 504,174 file downloads and 2,366,249 abstract views. We welcomed the following new RePEc archives: Université Paris-Nord, Toroudshomal Research-Industrial Company, Journal of Smart Economic Growth, Association Recherche et Régulation, Applied Economics Research Centre (Pakistan), Kobe University, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies. And finally we reached the following milestones:

25,000,000 extracted citations
2,000,000 online works
1,300,000 online articles
40,000 online book chapters
500 registered authors on Twitter directory


RePEc in September 2016

October 6, 2016

We counted 427,661 file downloads and 2,038,334 abstract views in September 2016 for the four RePEc services that provide such statistics: EconPapers, IDEAS, NEP, and SocioNet. Unfortunately, this does not include a longer and longer list of other services that also use the RePEc data. We have also welcomed the following new contributing archives: Athens University of Business and Economics, University of St. Thomas, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Central Bank of Azerbaijan Republic. And we reached a few milestones as well:

9,000,000 matched citations
5,000,000 cumulative book abstract views
600,000 working papers with listed abstracts
40,000 listed book chapters
10,000 cited book chapters
5,000 followers for NEP Twitter feeds


RePEc in August 2016

September 4, 2016

August has always been a period of calm in RePEc, and it was no different this year. We welcomed only three new participating archives: Sociedade Brasileira de Finanças, Groupe Editions Academiques Internationales, University of Navarra (II). We counted 405,701 file downloads and 1,907,803 abstract views. However, a major overhaul of MyIDEAS was completed, and we launched an initiative to significantly increase the coverage of citation analysis at CitEc. Finally, we reached a surprising number of milestones:

150,000,000 cumulative article abstract views
4,000,000 cumulative book chapter abstract views
1,300,000 listed articles
1,250,000 articles available online
500,000 cited articles
750,000 items with extracted and matched references
10,000 indexed blog posts on EconAcademics.org
7,500 indexed serials
500 RePEc-wide h-index (reached a couple of months ago)


RePEc in July 2016

August 2, 2016

What’s new? MyIDEAS has a fresh layout and it is now much easier to add items to it. New functionalities are coming soon, too. The look of the rankings has been refreshed as well, along with more information. And we have started an initiative to increase the proportion of items for which we can perform citation analysis. We have welcomed the following new participating RePEc archives: Bournemouth University, Path of Science, Croatian National Bank, Publishing house “Knowledge and Business” Varna, Instituto Politécnico Nacional. And we counted 394,018 file downloads and 2,291,145 abstract views over the month.

Milestones we reached over the last month:
75,000,000 cumulative abstract views on EconPapers
50,000,000 cumulative working paper downloads
2,100,000 indexed documents
1,200,000 items in author profiles
2,500 journals


When email addresses go stale

July 20, 2016

RePEc sends monthly updates by email to authors, editors, and archive maintainers. The email addresses are taken from the data that is provided by the recipients. If they fail to maintain these addresses when they move, RePEc may not be able to contact them any more. This post describes what happens under such circumstances.

Once an email bounces after the monthly mailing, we put a notice wherever contact information may appear on IDEAS or EconPapers, encouraging readers to provide an alternative email address. While a RePEc administrator can update an email address in an author’s record, for RePEc archives it is more difficult, as the primary metadata lives on the publisher’s site. The relevant series and archive information needs to be updated by the new person in charge. Unfortunately, the new person sometimes was not given instructions on how to do this, and RePEc can be of little help in maintaining information on remote sites, beyond pointing to the instructions that were given to initially build the archive. In any case, if you notice such an “bad email” message on the page of a publisher of yours, you likely know who to contact to get this fixed.

For authors, RePEc can do something. After a few months, we see whether we can change the email, either by searching our contents and the web for an alternative or by contacting recent co-authors. That has helped to keep the proportion of bad emails remarkably low, below 2%, but also means works for the RePEc team that could have been prevented if the authors maintained their contact information. However, you can help RePEc by alerting us. A list of all bad emails is here, and are marked throughout the EconPapers and IDEAS sites. We also appreciate to learn if an author died, so that we can stop trying and immortalize their profile here. Note that authors with a bad email do not count towards the rankings of their institution, the assumption being that this person has either moved or died.

NB: for editors, a bad email may come from either the publisher’s data or from the author profile, or both.


RePEc in June 2016

July 3, 2016

What is new with RePEc? We are looking to constitute a quality-control committee for journals and a tool to annotate PDF papers. Otherwise, this has been a calm month. We logged 437,573 file downloads and 1,886,440 abstract views from participating RePEc services. We welcomed the following new RePEc archives: Journal of Economics Teaching, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Kuehne Logistics University, École Polytechnique de Montréal, National University of Life and Environmental Sciences, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Bilimsel Mektuplar Organizasyonu, National Taiwan University, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, and Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik. Yet, we do not seem to have reached a significant milestone in the past month.