We computed 31 different rankings accordings to 31 different criteria, and then aggregate them up (after removing the best and the worst) using a harmonic mean of the rank orders. To see the different criteria and the rankings for everyone of them, see the top 5% authors. Click on each column header for a different method. You can also compute alternative rankings by aggregating the rankings differently or choosing a different set of criteria here. Finally, a document describes in detail the ranking procedures.
The link expires once the next mailing is being sent. Watch your email. Note that you will only get the new link if the email in your profile is current. Please keep in mind that the mailing can take a whole week to prevent an overload of our servers as people check their ranking analysis or their profile.
Reference extraction and citation linking is done by the CitEc project. See there for details. This data is then used, discarding self-citations and citations by different version of the same paper, to compute totals. There is also a RePEc Blog post that can be of interest.
Not from us. Ask this person directly, we consider rankings to be private, except for the top 5% who have every reason to be proud of being listed.
This can happen when you remove items from your profile, when a publisher removes some items from the database (either refering or citing), or when we notice that two citing or cited papers are different versions of the same work. It can also happen that we remove wrongly attributed citations (something you can also do: log into your profile, then click on "citations" and "identified").
References are only extracted from papers that are available online freely and could be parsed. We have no budget, and thus do not purchase such data or subscriptions. Some commercial publishers explicitely prohibit us from displaying references, as they are considered by them as part of the copyrighted work. Others see the value of getting links to their works and provide us directly with references. As you see, things are very uneven, and unless publishers can be convinced to release more of their records to the public, we are bound to analyze mostly working papers, which is mostly recent material (and thus added value compared to services that only look at articles). If we were not publishing the reference lists, just making counts, numbers would be higher, but our service would be much degraded by the lack of crosslinking of references. For more details about the citation analysis, see CitEc or this RePEc Blog post.
Note that we only include citations for which we have a high confidence that they match the appropriate paper. For those with lower levels of confidence, you can help us: log into your profile, click on "citations", and approve or reject our suggestions.
Finally keep in mind that for ranking purposes, we do not count self-citations, and we count only once when different versions of the same work cite you. Most other services do not perform these distinctions, unfortunately.
Each affiliation get a weight, with all weights summing to one. If possible, one half is reserved for the affiliation whose URL domain is the closest to the author's email address or web page URL. The rest is allocated according to a formula that gives less weight to affiliations with many authors. For details, see this blog post.
Authors and institutions are ranked within a region using scores that a weighted for multiregional affiliations and computed by ranking them among themselves. The ranks in square brackets are regional ranks if they were simply taken from the worldwide rankings.
As gender is not declared during registration, it is inferred from the first name using a gender likelihood database. For low likelihoods, an exception file is used.
Sure, here, listed by month.
Nowhere, we compute them ourselves. See the series sections on the rankings pages.
There scores are simply added. In the case of multiple affiliations, an author's score is distributed across affiliations. The only exception is the h-index, where it corresponds, for an institution, to the number of authors with an individual h-index at least that high.
Yes. As all individual scores are added, and not averaged by the number of authors, everyone contributes positively.
The fine print: in very rare circumstances, a student may hurt: if most others have multiple affiliations, due to the formula used to distribute scores across affiliations.
This document should satisfy you.
Author profiles do not contain information about the date of birth or the date of the last graduate degree. However, the date of the first publication, be it a working paper or an article is know. This date is used to determine who a young economist is. Quite obviously, there is a lot of measurement error for the youngest ones, both because of the uncertain dating, and because these economists have relatively few publications. More in the RePEc blog.
Comments and requests for additions are welcome. Send them to Christian Zimmermann.