[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[EP-tech] Metadata indicating full-text deposits for institutional repositories

Bravo to Dirk and others for their efforts to create reliable full-text deposit metrics
for institutional repositories.

Let me just stress, though, that -- for our recent findings on the correlation between
deposit-mandate-strength and deposits -- the fact that not all deposits are full-texts would
work against, not for, detecting a correlation: 

The deposit-mandates are all full-text mandates, not metadata-mandates. Hence 
whatever the baseline ratio of full-text deposits to total deposits, a significant increase
in total deposits with an increase in deposit-mandate strength is far more likely to
be the result of an increase in full-text deposits than of other kinds of 
content, unrelated to what the deposit-mandate is mandating.

That said, it would be splendid if repositories provided clearer and fuller
metadata to indicate full-text deposits (and, in particular, full-text deposits
of peer-reviewed research articles).

Eprints and Dspace developers (and IR managers): Attention!

Stevan Harnad

On 2012-10-30, at 7:56 AM, Dirk Pieper <dirk.pieper at uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:

> Seb,
> the correct term for the "Number of documents" line should be "Number of 
> OAI PMH metadata records", but outside the information professional 
> world nobody will understand this I suppose. BASE is harvesting OAI 
> metadata only.
> You are adressing a very important question: what is the ratio of OAI 
> metadata and Open Access full texts?
> Of course there are repositories, which provide 100% open access, but on 
> the other hand we see that repositories are becoming more and more 
> platforms for exposing the whole publication output of an institution. 
> So it would be great, if repository managers would use setSPEC 
> information about open access to documents more often (there are enough 
> guidelines from DARE, DINI, DRIVER, OpenAire, ...).
> We are trying to indicate real open access to documents within BASE 
> soon, but I fear that we can indicate this information only for a small 
> portion of the metadata.
> Best
> Dirk
> Am 30.10.2012 10:45, schrieb Seb Schmoller:
>> Dirk,
>> In the chart does the "Number of documents" line represent "full text
>> records" or "full text records and metadata only records", and if the
>> latter is there easily extractable data for each? (Apologies if these
>> terms are not strictly accurate.)
>> Seb Schmoller
>> On 30/10/2012 08:14, Dirk Pieper wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> BASE has currently indexed 2.356 repositories, which is more than
>>> OpenDoar but less than ROAR have listed.
>>> This page shows the growth since 2004:
>>> http://www.base-search.net/about/en/about_statistics.php?menu=2
>>> Because we administer the BASE repository list every week when updating
>>> the index, we can assure, that there are not so many skeletons in the
>>> BASE index.
>>> Best
>>> Dirk
>>> Am 30.10.2012 07:54, schrieb Richard Poynder:
>>>> Thanks for this Heather.
>>>> I think your figures come from OpenDoar
>>>> (http://www.opendoar.org/index.html), which currently appears to list 2,217
>>>> repositories. Meanwhile ROAR (http://roar.eprints.org/) lists 2,993.
>>>> With regard specifically to BMC's Open Repository service, OpenDoar lists 20
>>>> repositories that use the service (0.9% of the market), whereas ROAR lists
>>>> 18 (0.6%).
>>>> BMC itself lists 22 organisations that use its Open Repository services
>>>> (http://www.openrepository.com/customers).
>>>> Richard Poynder
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf
>>>> Of Heather Morrison
>>>> Sent: 29 October 2012 21:48
>>>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>>>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK Select
>>>> Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation
>>>> Open Repository is just one repository service.
>>>> The numbers for total growth of open repositories in total are much more
>>>> relevant. Since 2006, the numbers of open repositories around the world have
>>>> increased from just over 800 to over 2,200 (nearly tripling in numbers), as
>>>> illustrated in this growth chart in the most recent Dramatic Growth of Open
>>>> Access:
>>>> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/thank-you-open-access-movement.ht
>>>> ml
>>>> The repository numbers per se are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
>>>> Some of the repositories up and running in 2004 were in early pilot phases.
>>>> It takes time to get such a service up and running, develop and find support
>>>> for an institutional open access policy, educate faculty and students about
>>>> this new service, and fill the repository. In the past 8 years or so, we
>>>> have gone from a point where a very few institutions had early repositories
>>>> to a point where I would argue that an IR is a "must-have" to be taken
>>>> seriously as a research institution.
>>>> The situation in British Columbia (where I work) very much reflects this. In
>>>> 2004, only the largest institutions either had pilot IRs or IRs in the
>>>> planning stages. Today, there are a number of very actively promoted IRs.
>>>> Currently, what we are discussing at BC Electronic Library Network is a
>>>> collaborative approach to ensure that all BC post-secondaries have access to
>>>> this important service.
>>>> best,
>>>> Heather Morrison
>>>> pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/
>>>> On 2012-10-29, at 12:53 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
>>>>> Richard,
>>>>> The best person to ask about Open Repository would be Matt Cockerill,
>>>> director at BMC.
>>>>> I think you use the right term when you say that publishers 'allow'
>>>> self-archiving. Too often I see that interpreted as 'endorse', but that is a
>>>> very different thing in my view (and theirs, too, I guess).
>>>>> Jan
>>>>> On 29 Oct 2012, at 13:40, Richard Poynder wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks for the clarification Jan.
>>>>>> I wonder if anyone from BMC could update the list on how popular the Open
>>>> Repository service has proved, whether users are currently growing or
>>>> decreasing, and how many users there are at the moment etc.?
>>>>>> By the way, this is what BMC founder Vitek Tracz said to me in December
>>>> 2004
>>>> (http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2006/05/interview-with-vitek-tracz.html).
>>>>>> RP: One further complication that could perhaps retard progress is that
>>>> the OA movement has forked, with advocates disagreeing over the best way
>>>> forward. While OA publishers like you advocate OA publishing (the so-called
>>>> "Gold Road" to OA) supporters of the "Green Road" like Stevan Harnad argue
>>>> that it is sufficient for authors to continue publishing in traditional
>>>> subscription-based journals, but to then self-archive their papers. Does
>>>> Harnad have a point?
>>>>>> VT: I do not think so. Self-archiving is of course very desirable, but
>>>> the issue is quite simple: publishers are not really going to allow authors
>>>> to self-archive in an easy way, and authors are not going to do it unless it
>>>> is completely painless.
>>>>>> RP: I'm told that around 93% of journals currently do allow
>>>> self-archiving?
>>>>>> VT: They say they allow it, but publishers have merely created the
>>>> pretence of allowing it. They don't really. They say they allow
>>>> self-archiving, but authors can't just take their published papers and
>>>> archive them: they have to use their original manuscript, without any of the
>>>> corrections and changes made by the publisher. They have to mark it up
>>>> themselves, and they cannot use the illustrations created or amended by the
>>>> publisher. In practice it is really quite difficult to reproduce the
>>>> published paper.
>>>>>> If self-archiving were so easy why isn't it happening? Because in
>>>> practice self-archiving is impractical. That said, for those who want it
>>>> BioMed Central supports self-archiving by offering to help institutions
>>>> create repositories for their researchers' papers.
>>>>>> Richard Poynder
>>>>>> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Jan Velterop
>>>>>> Sent: 29 October 2012 11:07
>>>>>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>>>>>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK Select
>>>> Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation
>>>>>> In response to what we heard in the market, Richard. That our offering
>>>> was launched so quickly after the Select Committee Report came out was more
>>>> like a happy coincidence.
>>>>>> Besides, should we have realised the importance of repositories as a
>>>> result of the Inquiry, would there be a problem with actually offering
>>>> concrete assistance to repositories some time *after* we realised the
>>>> importance of repositories' role? Well, in our case the realisation came
>>>> quite some time before we offered the service. These things take
>>>> preparation, you know. Extraordinary, isn't it?
>>>>>> You may recall that we were convinced of the potential importance of
>>>> repositories as evidenced already at the BOAI, and the Bethesda Statement on
>>>> Open Access, both of which I signed on behalf of BMC.
>>>>>> The point I tried to make is that we argued for OA. And yes, we did try
>>>> to convince authors to publish in the fully and immediately open BMC
>>>> journals. Calling that "Lobbying for giving up authors' preferred journals
>>>> in favour of Gold OA journals" is spin. Were I to use similar spin, I could
>>>> say something like "the Green OA advocates are lobbying for authors to be
>>>> mandated to deposit their manuscripts in repositories, and be forced to
>>>> accept sub-optimal OA, with access delays, technical and usage limitations,
>>>> and problematic financing of publishing via subscriptions."
>>>>>> But spin is not doing Open Access justice. It is Open Access I advocate.
>>>> Immediate and with full re-use rights. If 'green' achieves that, too, great.
>>>> Most repositories do have final, published, OA articles in their collections
>>>> as well. Open from day one. With CC-BY licences. 'Gold' is not antithetical
>>>> to repositories. I don't think it is good, though, to be satisfied with
>>>> sub-optimal solutions just for reasons of expediency.
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>> On 29 Oct 2012, at 10:34, Richard Poynder wrote:
>>>>>> On 28 Oct 2012, at 23:07, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>>>>>> Giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of pure Gold OA journals
>>>> was what (I think) BMC's Vitek Tracz and Jan Velterop had been lobbying for
>>>> at the time
>>>>>> Stevan may think so, but that doesn't make it correct or accurate. What
>>>> we advocated (lobbied for in Stevan's words) at the time, and what I still
>>>> advocate now, is open access. Period. We argued that a system of open access
>>>> publishing at source is better than a subscription system, and we realised
>>>> that repositories would likely play an important role in achieving open
>>>> access. That's why BMC offered assistance with establishing repositories,
>>>> and the company still does: http://www.openrepository.com
>>>>>> I think it would be true to say that BioMed Central launched its
>>>> repository service in response to the Select Committee Inquiry?
>>>>>> http://www.biomedcentral.com/presscenter/pressreleases/20040913

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/eprints-tech/attachments/20121030/c9638210/attachment.html