I just finished putting together my 2007 publications for our departmental administrator (as part of DEST’s grand cataloguing process, all universities report publications annually). I predicted in March that I’d get 6-7 published articles in 2007. In the end, I managed 8, plus 2 book chapters, a handful of non-reviewed articles (mostly in the Melbourne Review), and a bunch of opeds. But some of the articles were in better journals than my 2005 and 2006 publications (eg. Economic Journal, Journal of Health Economics, B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy-Contributions), so I’m pleased enough with the year. Nonetheless, I’d rather like to make it into double-figures in 2008…

This entry was posted in Universities. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Pubs

  1. conrad says:

    Perhaps you should report how your H value increased, or how well your previous papers have been going (i.e., do people care about your work?), although I’m not sure what database economists use for that (scopus? Web of Science ? etc.). A quick google scholar search pops up with a few reasonable hits. Surely these are more meaningful given the type of distribution that scientific impact has.

  2. Andrew Leigh says:

    Conrad, you’re right that that’s a better long-term metric. But I’m also rather keen to maintain a decent flow of papers as well.

    For what it’s worth, this site puts my H-index at 10 (as does the more reliable Publish or Perish program), while Repec puts my ranking among Australian economists at 55th in both November 2006 and November 2007. (More interestingly, Pagan has taken the lead from Quiggin over that period!)

  3. Sinclair Davidson says:

    For a while I was Dean (Reasearch) and used the Publish or Perish program to evaluate staff for the RQF process. (I know that DEST wouldn’t allow electronic citing but I thought it would be a valuable first cut of the data). Having played with it and the data and so on, I can’t say it is useful in the hands of third parties and I now know why DEST wouldn’t allow it. it is very hard to make comparisons in the absence of existing detailed knowledge.

    Andrew, I think you meant to say “rather keen to maintain a flow of decent papers as well”.

  4. conrad says:

    I quite like that Repec tool — I wish they had one in my area.

Comments are closed.