EconStor now in RePec TOP 10

Posted: June 26th, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Newspost | Tags: , , | Comments Off

Latest statistics sees EconStor among the ten most heavily used archives in RePec

Most Economists know, that RePEc publishes rankings on publications, authors and research institutions.  Less known is the fact, that RePec also provides statistics on it’s contributing archives and how they perform. These archives can come from university faculties (e.g. for their working papers), from publishers (for their journals) or from repositories (either institutional or subject based). A ranking of the largest archives is provided on the RePEc homepage (see also screenshot on the right).

As a subject repository with a focus on the German Economics community EconStor provides it’s RePEc input services for over 100 institutions, which places as amont the TOP 20 archives with respect to size.

But even more pleasant (and also more important to our customers) is the fact, that papers on EconStor are also heavily used. Looking at the detailed LogEc statistics for all contributing archives in RePEc, we find that EconStor (acronym “zbw”) is at number 10 concerning the use of our archives (number of downloads).


Webometrics Ranking confirms: EconStor among the 20 biggest Repositories worldwide

Posted: February 13th, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Newspost | Tags: , , | Comments Off

New edition of webometrics ranking now also includes Altmetrics indicators. EconStor ranks at number 17 concerning full-text documents.

The “Ranking Web of Repositories” is a service provided by the Spanish Reseseach Organization CSIC. Besides comparing repositories it also ranks Universities, Business Schools and Hospitals. The repository ranking is published every 6 months, now in it’s 14th edition.

The latest edition, which was published this week, introduced a new element among the relevant criteria for the ranking: The “Altmetrics”-Element (which accounts for 25% of the ranking) is monitoring services like Twitter, Wikipedia and Google+ and looks up, how often repository documents are mentioned in these service.

The new Webometrics repository ranking sees EconStor at number 45 (out of 1750 repositories worldwide) in the overall ranking. When it comes to the number of PDF-Documents within a repository (category “rich files”), EconStor comes out even better at Number 17. Concerning the coverage in Google Scholar, we rank at number 21.


EconStor Downloads now compliant with COUNTER

Posted: August 26th, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Newspost | Tags: , , , | Comments Off

In order to make the EconStor download numbers more comparable with other services, we now use the internationally established COUNTER standard to measure our download usage.
Moreover we supply not only the download counts for individual papers, but also for whole collections or even for institutions. Plus we provide information about the breakdown of downloads by country.
For more information, please click here.

Important aspect: We found, that the Download numbers measured via COUNTER only differ about 10-20% from our internal download numbers, that we have used before.


EconStor climbs to number 29 in new Webometrics repository ranking

Posted: August 26th, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Newspost | Tags: , , | Comments Off

New edition of webometrics ranking compares over 1700 repositories worldwide according to several categories.

The “Ranking Web of Repositories” is a service provided by the Spanish Reseseach Organization CSIC. Besides comparing repositories it also ranks Universities, Business Schools and Hospitals. The repository ranking is published every 6 months, now in it’s 13th edition.

Compared to earlier rankings EconStor has climbed several places and now ranks at number 29 worldwide, climbing almost 50 places (from number 77) within one year! And in the European Repository ranking EconStor now stands at number 11.

The TOP5 positions of the ranking are also held by subject based repositories or databases (ArXiv, RePEc, PubMed Central, Citeseer and SSRN).


Open Access increases the “Superstar effect”

Posted: July 2nd, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Newspost | Tags: , , , | Comments Off

New Analysis on the impact of Open Access availability on citations finds out, that Open access increases cites to the top-ranked journals but reduces cites to lower-ranked journals.

Two Economists, Mark McCabe (University of Michigan School of Information) and Christopher Snyder (Dartmouth College), have published a new study of the impact of open access on citation rates for science journal content. McCabe and Snyder found that open access increases citation rates for high-quality content, while reducing citations to lower-quality content. In their paper, “The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Poorer: The Effect of Open Access on Cites to Science Journals Across the Quality Spectrum,” McCabe and Snyder construct a model to explain their findings, which was based on an analysis of 100 journals in ecology, botany, and general science. The authors document what they call a “superstar effect,” in which the benefits of open access (namely, increased citations) accrue to higher quality content and journals, while lower-tier content does not receive such benefits.

Mark McCabe, a research investigator at the University of Michigan School of Information, and Christopher Snyder, a faculty member in Economics at Dartmouth College, have published a new study of the impact of open access on citation rates for science journal content. McCabe and Snyder found that open access increases citation rates for high-quality content, while reducing citations to lower-quality content. In their paper, “The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Poorer: The Effect of Open Access on Cites to Science Journals Across the Quality Spectrum,” McCabe and Snyder construct a model to explain their findings, which was based on an analysis of 100 journals in ecology, botany, and general science. The authors document what they call a “superstar effect,” in which the benefits of open access (namely, increased citations) accrue to higher quality content and journals, while lower-tier content does not receive such benefits. – See more at: http://www.publishing.umich.edu/2013/06/07/new-research-on-open-access/#sthash.8YrgShrw.dpuf
Mark McCabe, a research investigator at the University of Michigan School of Information, and Christopher Snyder, a faculty member in Economics at Dartmouth College, have published a new study of the impact of open access on citation rates for science journal content. McCabe and Snyder found that open access increases citation rates for high-quality content, while reducing citations to lower-quality content. In their paper, “The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Poorer: The Effect of Open Access on Cites to Science Journals Across the Quality Spectrum,” McCabe and Snyder construct a model to explain their findings, which was based on an analysis of 100 journals in ecology, botany, and general science. The authors document what they call a “superstar effect,” in which the benefits of open access (namely, increased citations) accrue to higher quality content and journals, while lower-tier content does not receive such benefits. – See more at: http://www.publishing.umich.edu/2013/06/07/new-research-on-open-access/#sthash.8YrgShrw.dpuf

Social Media references as data for RePEc rankings? Network starts Online Voting

Posted: April 29th, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Newspost | Tags: , , | Comments Off

repecCitation analysis in RePEc is very popular among Economists worldwide. So far it is mainly based on citations in reference lists of Journal Articles and Working Papers. But as Social Media are more and more used not only for academic networking, but also for scholarly discussions, an extended impact analysis is up for discussion.

In his latest Blog Entry RePEc member Christian Zimmermann proposes some extensions to the existing RePEc rankings, e.g. the inclusion of Wikipedia or Economics Blogs. In order to get a better understanding of the Community View, Zimmermann started an Online Voting. The results are open for everyone and show so far, that there’s a split within Economists, with one part being open for the inclusion of Social Media for citation analysis, while others are very sceptical.

This shows, that there’s definitely some change going on the scholarly publication landscape in Economics, but so far Social Media are still controversial, when it comes to quality assessment of research papers. Nevertheless there are tools like Altmetrics, who show, that impact analysis goes beyond journal impact factors. And even large research organisations like the Leibniz Association in Germany with it’s research network “Science 2.o” have started to analyse how Social Media are affecting scholarly communication.


EconStor among the TOP25 repositories in Europe

Posted: February 26th, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Monthly Report | Tags: , , | Comments Off

New edition of webometrics ranking compares repositories worldwide and by region according to several categories.

The “Ranking Web of Repositories” is a service provided by the Spanish Reseseach Organization CSIC. Besides comparing repositories it also ranks Universities, Business Schools and Hospitals. The repository ranking is published every 6 months, now in it’s 12th edition.

Compared to earlier rankings EconStor has climbed several places and now ranks at number 52 worldwide, with the TOP positions held by SSRN, ArXiv and the NASA Astrophysics Data System. Looking at fulltext content only (category “rich files”), EconStor fares even better, being now number 15 worldwide and number 7 in Europe.

 

 


IZA launches 5 new Open Access Journals

Posted: November 27th, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Newspost | Tags: , , , , | Comments Off

The number of interesting new Open Access Journals in Economics increases, as IZA launches five new field journals

http://www.iza.org/images/logo_gross_grau.jpgThe Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) is a private research institute, based in Germany, with the focus on labour market research. They are already editing a prominent Discussion Paper Series (also available on EconStor), which belongs to to the TOP 20 Working Paper Series in RePEc.

On top of that IZA has now started five new Open Access Journals, which focus on the different aspects of Labour Markets:

All Journals are published with SpringerOpen and do not charge any author fees. Each journal involves peer reviewing, with the focus on a fast decision making and publication process:

Acceptance/rejection decisions are expected to be made “within one month; publication is expected “within two months after submission of the final manuscript.The fast process from the submission to the acceptance/rejection decision is guaranteed by (i) an advanced desk rejection policy and (ii) the fact that only those papers refereed that require minor revisions are accepted while those not accepted are rejected without a detailed referee report. This requires the submission of manuscripts that are considered ready by the author/s for direct publication if found suitable by the editorial team.

With the reputation of the Discussion Paper Series already established, there might be a good chance also for the Journals to enter the ranking lists.


IZA paper provides new ranking for German Economic Research Institutes

Posted: September 24th, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Newspost | Tags: , , , , | Comments Off

A new IZA paper by Rolf Ketzler and Klaus F Zimmermann presents a ranking for German economic research institutes (all part of the Leibniz Association) based on their publications in SSCI-Journals from 2000-2009.

In the results of the raw data, ZEW Mannheim holds the leading position with 1,511 citations, followed by DIW Berlin (1,189 citations),  ifo Munich (753 citations), IfW Kiel (593 citations), RWI Essen (382 citations) and IWH Halle (90 citations).

The authors also found an employer and publisher bias among the cites of published articles of research staff from the German research institutes: If from the Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), articles have significantly more cites than if from the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin) or one of the others. If published in a Springer journal, the articles receive more cites than with Blackwell, and if published with Sage, the articles receive significantly less cites than with Blackwell.

 


Handelsblatt Ranking causes uproar among German Business Economists

Posted: September 10th, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Newspost | Tags: , , | Comments Off

The German Business Newspaper Handelsblatt publishes annual rankings on German Economists and Business Economists based on their publication output. This years ranking (which was published today), caused a big uproar beforehand among  researchers. As a result, over 300 Professors (about 11% of all Business Economists In Germany) opted out, which means, that they are no longer included in the ranking.  This seems quite a number but, looking at the research output of  the boycotteurs in more detail, one finds out, that most of  them are not very active in publishing research articles, in fact only about 6-7% are among  the TOP100 of the Handelsblatt Ranking.

Nevertheless this behaviour brought up a national debate about the sense and nonsense of rankings and the right parameters to choose for evaluation. Most of this debate is unfortunately available only in German, but there are also a few English blogposts out there, e.g. from the “Lumpy Economist” and “Econ Tidbits”.

 


ZBW Leibniz Gemeinschaft Open Access DFG