For a collection of such estimates, see Tonn and Stiefel (2014, pp. 134–5).
I think it’d be better to direct people to the appendix of Beard et al. (2020), since that’s more comprehensive and up-to-date. (I also really like the article itself.)
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I also think it’d be even better-er to direct people to my database, since that’s even more comprehensive and up-to-date (and people can and do make suggestions to it, which I process, such that it should presumably remain the most comprehensive resource, rather than being frozen in time). But I can understand Tarsney preferring to refer readers to an academic source.
(Incidentally, if there’s anyone who’d in theory like to cite my database, but can’t do so unless it’s hosted somewhere else—e.g., a preprint server—or needs it to look different, please let me know and I’ll see what I can do.)
Also, Tarsney writes:
I think it’d be better to direct people to the appendix of Beard et al. (2020), since that’s more comprehensive and up-to-date. (I also really like the article itself.)
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I also think it’d be even better-er to direct people to my database, since that’s even more comprehensive and up-to-date (and people can and do make suggestions to it, which I process, such that it should presumably remain the most comprehensive resource, rather than being frozen in time). But I can understand Tarsney preferring to refer readers to an academic source.
(Incidentally, if there’s anyone who’d in theory like to cite my database, but can’t do so unless it’s hosted somewhere else—e.g., a preprint server—or needs it to look different, please let me know and I’ll see what I can do.)