Thursday, January 7, 2010


Economic Blogger Ranking, By Scholarly Impact

Check out this article (HT2 Greg Mankiw). It has a table ranking econ bloggers by scholarly impact. I don't mind being beaten by Paul Samuelson, or Nouriel Roubini, or even Tyler Cowen or Bryan Caplan for that matter. But Stephan Kinsella?! What the heck?! (Incidentally we have surpassed our weekly quota of I-hate-GMU / no-I-hate-Auburn so please let's not start it up on this post too.)

Such a disproportionate amount of Austrians on that list, love it.
Wait, do serious journals actually cite Against Intellectual Property? Seriously?

Well, I've got my work cut out for me.
Looks like "The Austrian Economists" had some strong brand equity built up.
What can I say, Bob? The world is my oyster.
The world is my bearded clam.
Don't get too down, Bob. I enjoy reading your blog.

And where's Krugman? Oh yeah, he's a political activist, not an economist.
Bob, I saw this, too, but how can it be real? If it is, then the Austrians are on the verge of taking over the world.
It's typical, econometric mad model building. It assumes facts not in evidence, twists the models to work with the data thay have and doesn't appear to differentiate between citations because of other work and blog work.

I see a number of errors, including the fact I have been cited in journals for my blog work and I am not listed.

The issue is with the program they use to measure citation count. Note the citation count is to scholarly citations, so blog posts are not listed. It is citations in journals, etc. But then they calculate some sort of "career length" which doesn't make any sense. I wrote about this when the paper was in working paper form and I asked this question to Peter Klein. The program is called publish or perish.

Somehow I have over 1200 citations, but only a yearly professional citation of little over 20, which would put my professional life at over 60 years of practicing economics --- I would be 88 years old or so by this calculation.

I don't have the time and patience to break this down to make sense, but it is confusing to me. As was the other citation study done by Josh Hall and Scott Beaulier. Which in that case errors in another direction I think.

Anyway, I wish someone would explain to me Table 1 and the derivation of the last 2 columns.

Also, no offense to Nikolai Foss (who I think is very good) but this table has him as having a more scholarly impact than Steven Levitt. Should give everyone pause in terms of the measurements engaged in independent of whether you think Levitt is any good or not (I happen to think he is). But it is absurd to claim that Foss has a greater scholarly impact than a John Bates Clark Medal winner and Professor at the University of Chicago, and former editor of the JPE, etc., etc. The authors should have known something was off, with that result alone.

Pete, the "total citations per year" isn't citations to a particular author divided by the number of years that author's been publishing papers. The article is the unit of analysis. The program takes each paper's total cites, divides by the number of years that paper has existed, then sums this total across authors.
I hate Auburn!
(Seriously, screw those guys...tie the game with like 5 seconds on the clock and you win with a stupid field goal in OT. Argh.)

Did you change your name to 6p00e39332499b8834 because people were confusing your work on institutions with the writings of Peter Brimelow?
von Pepe stated: Looks like "The Austrian Economists" had some strong brand equity built up.

And, it looks like someone has stepped in to fill the void:
You will like the ugg boots,you will found More and more people choose cheap ugg boots.So you know that ugg series of the most famous is the ugg boots sale. I recommend you go to online store, there have a lot of ugg boots uk Bailey ugg boots
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]