{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017488076311605722, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.774193548387097, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Electronic Resources and Heterodox Economists

The idea of measuring scientific relevance by counting citations is gaining ever-growing consensus among economists, and thanks to the electronic bibliographic resources now available the procedure has become relatively simple and fast. However, when it comes to putting the idea into practice many challenging problems emerge. This paper uses five of the principal bibliographic electronic resources (EconLit, JSTOR, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar) to test the practical applicability of this method for measuring relevance to the particular case of heterodox economics.