EconPapers and LogEc down

July 27, 2008

Two RePEc services, EconPapers and LogEc, are down since late Saturday or early Sunday. This post will provide updates on the situation.

EconPapers provides a browsable and searchable database of bibliographic entries from RePEc. IDEAS provides a similar service and can be used in the meanwhile. LogEc provides usage statistics for the listed works. The statistics will not be affected due to the downtime.

Update (Tuesday): Both services are running again, on a different machine. The same URLs are valid, but DNS servers will take a little while to understand the change of location.

Update (Friday): Both services are now running again on the original machine, which suffered a power supply problem.

Leave a Comment » | Temporary RePEc announcements | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Christian Zimmermann

The h-index

July 20, 2008

There are many ways to rank researchers, but rarely has one been adopted as fast as the h-index. It has been introduced by physicist Jorge E. Hirsch in August 2005, and is defined by h, with h works from an author having at least h citations. Compared to “raw” citation counts, which may put too much emphasis on a few much cited works, it highlights the trade-off between quantity and quality of research. Of course, like any research ranking criterion, it is imperfect in many ways and controversial to all but those who rank well. But it allows to highlight some aspects of research productivity.

RePEc has reported rankings according to the h-index since October 2005 for authors. There is also a variant for institutions and regions, where h is defined as the number authors with an h-index of at least h. Due to the large number of ties, how far an institution is from reaching the next h is also taken into account.

Quite naturally, the h-index can also be defined for journals and series. Starting this month, RePEc publishes such h-indexes: journals, working paper series (preprints), and all series combined. Obviously, journals and series with longer publishing histories are favored, and we hope this will have the side-effect of publishers making sure to have a complete listing on RePEc.

By the way, the overall h-index for all of RePEc is at 225 as of today.

Addendum (August 3): For authors, there is now also a Wu-index. This has been proposed by Qiang Wu and is defined in a similar way to the h-index, except that one needs 10 citations per paper. Due to the very large number of ties and zeros, this criterion is, however, not integrated in the overall rankings.

1 Comment | RePEc rankings | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by Christian Zimmermann

Using RePEc for syllabi, bibliographies and publication lists

July 13, 2008

As highlighted in a recent post, we encourage deep linking in RePEc services. This is particularly useful for reading lists and syllabi. In fact, IDEAS provides simple tools to create such lists on its web site.

The first one allows to create reading lists by providing code that is similar to HTML and includes handles of items listed in RePEc. Each of these items is then automatically matched with other versions, thus allowing to find a free version of a password protected article, or find the latest version of a working paper as published in a journal. Different layouts are possible: one for a course syllabus, one for reading lists.

The second one allows to create a list of publications from a set of authors registered on RePEc. Existing examples include ex-pats from some countries, graduates from programs, winners of prizes, etc. Note that such lists are automatically computed for members of research units or departments. See listing on EDIRC. For other lists, this tools comes handy.

Leave a Comment » | RePEc features | Permalink
Posted by Christian Zimmermann

RePEc in June 2008

July 3, 2008

June was a surpisingly busy month, especially in terms of content expansion. We have now reached 600,000 works listed on RePEc, and it took only 10 months to add the last 100,000. Traffic was also heavy for the season, reaching 584,843 downloads and 2,803,705 abstract views.

The following institutions joined RePEc with an archive: World Scientific Publishing, Queens College (CUNY), GEFRA, Kobe University, Institut für Angewandte Wirtschaftsforschung (IAW), Université d’Auvergne, Universtät Freiburg, Società Italiana degli Economisti. Finally, here are the thresholds we reached this month:

140,000,000 cumulative abstract views
100,000,000 cumulative abstract views on IDEAS
45,000,000 cumulative abstract views for articles
600,000 listed works
350,000 articles listed
300,000 online articles listed
240,000 working papers listed
180,000 working paper abstracts
150,000 items with references
120,000 article abstracts
20,000 NEP reports

Leave a Comment » | Economics Profession, Workings of RePEc | Permalink
Posted by Christian Zimmermann

Why hotlinking to a RePEc service makes sense

June 27, 2008

Hotlinking is the practice of linking to a web page deep in a web site, instead of its front page. This practice is discouraged by many news sites, both because they prefer users to browse through the site and because links may become obsolete.

At RePEc, we actually encourage hotlinking. Links in RePEc services are designed to stay current (in principle). Also, instead of linking to a PDF file on a researcher’s web page, which may disappear, abstract pages on EconPapers or IDEAS are much more stable. In addition, these abstract pages may provide links to other versions of the paper. This proves particularly useful if the user does not have access to a password protected article from a commercial publisher, or if the user wishes to know whether the paper has been published. Other links on the abstract page can also be valuable, like those to author profiles, references, citations and related works. Finally, authors always appreciate when paper downloads are counted towards their statistics. Indeed, RePEc can only monitor traffic routed through its services.

Therefore, we encourage hotlinks to RePEc services on blogs, online syllabi, personal web pages, online bibliographies, etc.

4 Comments | RePEc features | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by Christian Zimmermann

Where are the women?

June 19, 2008

Women have always been underrepresented in Economics. For example, regarding US faculty, the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession (CSWEP), a subcommittee of the American Economic Association, determines in its latest annual report that women represent 28% of assistant professors, 21% of associate professors and 8% of full professors in PhD granting Economics department. As a whole, they represent 19% of all Economics faculty.

The point of this post is not to complain about the low proportion of women in the profession, or about their dwindling share up the ladder, but about the lack of involvement on women in RePEc. Currently, their share is at 14.5%. It is clearly below the 19% mentioned, although it is slowly increasing (it was 13.6% a year ago and 12.7% two years ago). Why this underrepresentation?

It is of course possible that their a bias in those numbers, because the CSWEP numbers pertain only to the United States and the RePEc Author Service covers the whole world. So, let us analyze the top 1000 economists from Tom Coupé’s list. Of the men, only 22.9% are not registered taking the ranking by publications, and 32.4% with the ranking by citations (which includes quite a few non-economists). For women, the numbers are 37.2% and 44.4%. We see that top female economists are less likely to be signed up with RePEc.

Therefore, encourage women to register at the RePEc Author Service!

PS: You may wonder how these numbers are determined, as gender is not indicated when registering with the RePEc Author Service. It is inferred from first names, using a database of gender likelihood by name. For the more uncertain cases, an exception table was created using additional information, in particular from pictures on personal web pages.

1 Comment | Economics Profession | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Christian Zimmermann

Fluctuations in author citation counts

June 11, 2008

Many authors may have rejoiced about the increase in their citation counts in their last monthly notification. At least part of this increase is due to an error that crept in while fixing a citation display issue for authors on IDEAS. This error is now fixed and next month’s mailing will show a substantial decrease in citation counts for some. While I got no complaints this time, I expect some in a few weeks…

In some cases, counts will be even lower than before the error crept in. This is because now extra care is taken not to double count citations to and from different versions of the same works. As always, self-citations are not counted in totals but still displayed on IDEAS.

Leave a Comment » | RePEc rankings | Permalink
Posted by Christian Zimmermann

RePEc in May 2008

June 4, 2008

Traffic on RePEc services continues to be high, establishing a record for the third month in a row for abstracts. But tis streak is expected to come to an end, as Summer traffic is typically lower. All in all, we counted 693,457 file downloads and 2,836,840 abstract views.

During the month of May, the following institutions joined RePEc with new archives:
University of Hamburg, Institute for Advanced Studies Lucca, CIDE, University College Dublin, Nanyang Technological University, Romanian Journal of Regional Science, University of Central Missouri, University of Luxembourg, Queensland University of Technology.

In terms of thresholds passed, you should notice a few very significant ones:
90,000,000 cumulative abstract views for working papers
20,000,000 cumulative downloads through IDEAS
1,000,000 cumulative downloads through NEP
300,000 abstracts available
180,000 working papers available online
120,000 JEL coded items

Leave a Comment » | Workings of RePEc | Permalink
Posted by Christian Zimmermann

Call for Papers: The Economics of Limited and Open Access Publishing

May 29, 2008

Economic Analysis and Policy (EAP) is a 38 year old journal published by the Economic Society of Australia (Queensland branch) that has just adopted an open access policy. To celebrate this important step, EAP intends to publish in 2009 a special issue on the Economics of publishing, with special reference to different business models, like the commercial, university press, open access and pre-print models. Academic publishing is undergoing a profound transformation that we wish to better understand.

EAP particularly seeks to publish passionate, critical, and controversial articles. It is open to orthodox but also unorthodox approaches.

We expect to publish 5 to 8 articles. They will be peer-reviewed under the guest editorship of Christian Zimmermann (University of Connecticut). Please submit your manuscript in PDF format through the journal’s online submission.

Update: The submission deadline is set for November 1, 2008.

Leave a Comment » | Dissemination of research in Economics, Open Archives | Permalink
Posted by Christian Zimmermann

My paper got published, what do I do?

May 20, 2008

A typical situation: An author registered on the RePEc Author Service has a working paper, listed on RePEc in his profile, that got published in a journal. Now that the publisher has provided the bibliographic information about this article to RePEc, the author can add it to his profile. What should he do about the working paper?

In an overwhelming majority of cases, the answer is: nothing! Indeed, most publishers accept that pre-prints, even post-prints, remain on authors´ home pages or institution repositories (what department working paper series are, for example). In case of doubt, see the SHERPA/RoMEO list. Thus, the author should not ask the paper to be removed from wherever it was put up.

Note: removing a paper from an author profile does not remove it from the database. It only makes the system learn that the author is not the author of this particular work. The consequences can be very annoying. For example, it becomes impossible for RePEc to recognize that these are two versions (pre-print and published) of the same work, as they appear to have different authors. Then, someone stumbling on the working paper will not find a link to the published version.

For authors caring about their ranking, there are even more adverse consequences from removing the working paper from the author profile. First, many working paper series have higher impact factors that journals. Second, the authors loose the download statistics of the working paper. Remember, working papers are much more downloaded than articles. And if the article is available only to subscribers, non-subscribers do not have the option of accessing the free working paper version.

And if it is really required that the working paper be removed, ask the RePEc series maintainer to only remove the link to the full text, not the whole record.

Leave a Comment » | RePEc rankings | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Christian Zimmermann

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »