[CoDeP] injuction types

[Thomas Krichel]

  Andrei Shumilov writes

> I think (partial) solution to the problem with non-academic,
> non-economic content and deceptive publishing could be the
> following. Let such series stay in RePEc, but exclude them from
> rankings,

  There is no official RePEc ranking and making one would be against
  RePEc priniciples.  We try not to limit the use made of RePEc data.

> don’t add corresponding articles into authors’ profiles

  That's a matter for the RePEc Author Service. Yes it is possible
  for administrators not to include papers from a certain source
  for inclusion, and it is possible to delete them. 

> and personal pages. Is it possible to implement it technically?

  Yes.
  
> What do you think about my suggestion?

  What you outline is one strategy for the committee's work.  Issue a
  list of sources we believe are deceptive, and add that information
  to RePEc. Then let RePEc services decide what to do with that
  information. It is what I call an additive injunction.

  There is also the option of a negative injuction. This is to
  remove an existing publisher, or prevent its inclusion.

  Because of technical constraints, a negative injunction can
  only be taken a against a publisher, or more precise a RePEc archive.
  Thus it is crude and severe.

  Additive injunctions are more flexible, they may be made against
  indiviual documents.

  I believe that there is a place for both tools. But combining
  them in a committee constitution makes the undertaking of
  drafting the constitution quite difficult.

-- 

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel                  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
                                              skype:thomaskrichel