Why don't you use citations or somehow adjust for paper impact?
You absolutely should account for paper quality when evaluating academics, such as for promotion and hiring. But at times, people instead simply count publications, especially when scholars are young and their work has not yet accumulated citations. And if people are going to bean count, they might as well do so with an accurate idea of how the count compares across the profession; that is why this project exists.

What determines the journal tiers?
General interest journals are divided into tiers. Then field journals are assigned based on perception relative to the general interest journals. The goal is to roughly approximate the preferences of the profession; we do not claim that these preferences are good. Tiers were assigned systematically based off of 2 inputs: LLMs' evaluation of the profession's perceptions, and ideas.repec rankings. Although if there are clear errors, we want to hear about them.

Why isn't [some journal] included?
We excluded most econ-adjacent journals (e.g. accounting) to keep the project manageable. We also excluded most invited volumes (e.g. Annual Review of Economics) and journals that are not focused on original academic research (e.g. JEL, JEP). But this is a work in progress, and more will be added. If we missed a major field journal, let us know.

Why is "All Fields (ex. Energy)" the default?
The energy field is a clear outlier: energy economists publish substantially more than other fields. If you want to include them, select "All Fields" from the dropdown box.

Why are some authors missing?
We only include authors registered in the RePEc database. Coauthors not in RePEc are still counted for the α/n adjustment.