Standing on the shoulder of giants: The aspect of free-riding in RePEc rankings

Wohlrabe, Klaus and Meyer, Justus (2017): Standing on the shoulder of giants: The aspect of free-riding in RePEc rankings.

Abstract

RePEc rankings have become a well-established source of information about actual and perceived academic performance of institutions, academic fields and their authors. One essential ingredient are the impact factors calculated in RePEc which differ from the standard ones. RePEc reports the ratio of the cumulative citations of all articles of a journal and the number of listed items. The continuously updated RePEc impact factors account for the whole journal and citation history. This approach give rise to a potential free-riding of authors who profit from journal ranking established in the past. In this paper we demonstrate how the rankings of economists change if one calculates yearly impact factors. The distribution of gains and losses is most pronounced among middle-field ranked authors while the top group shows relative persistence.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: impact factors; rankings; free-riding; RePEc
• Subjects: A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A12 - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines; A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A14 - Sociology of Economics

References

Althouse, B. M., West, J. D., Bergstrom, C. T. and Bergstrom, T. (2008). Differences in impact factor across fields and over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (1), 27–34.

Anderson, D. L. and Tressler, J. (forthcomming). Researcher rank stability across alternative output measurement schemes in the context of a time limited research evaluation: the new zealand case. Applied Economics.

Archambault, É. and Larivière, V. (2009). History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences. Scientometrics, 79 (3), 635–649.

Costa Vieira, P. C. (2004). Statistical variability of top ranking economics journals impact. Applied Economics Letters, 11 (15), 945–948.

Ellison, G. (2002). The slowdown of the economics publishing process. Journal of Political Economy, 110 (5), 947–993.

Franses, P. H. (2014). Trends in three decades of rankings of dutch economists. Scientometrics, 98 (2), 1257–1268.

Glänzel, W. and Moed, H. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53 (2), 171–193.

Haucap, J. and Muck, J. (2015). Statistical variability of top ranking economics journals impact. Scientometrics, 103 (3), 849–877.

Liebowitz, S. and Palmer, J. (1984). Assessing the relative impacts of economics journals. Journal of Economic Literature, 22 (1), 77–88.

Nederhof, A. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66 (1), 81–100.

Rath, K. and Wohlrabe, K. (2016). Recent trends in co-authorship in economics: evidence from repec. Applied Economics Letters, 23 (12), 897–902.

Rath, K. and Wohlrabe, K. (2016). Trends in economics publications represented by jel categories between 2007 and 2013. Applied Economics Letters, 23 (9), 660–663.

Seiler, C. and Wohlrabe, K. (2014). How robust are journal rankings based on the impact factor? evidence from the economic sciences. Journal of Informetrics, 8 (4), 904–911.

Sommer, V. and Wohlrabe, K. (2017). Citations, journal ranking and multiple authorships reconsidered: evidence from almost one million articles. Applied Economics Letters, forthcoming.

Zimmermann, C. (2013). Academic rankings with repec. Econometrics, 1 (3), 249–280.