All entries for September 2008

September 25, 2008

Summer round–up

I've been asked to round up what has happened with the repository over the last summer. The main thing, of course, is that we are now live. We're live and growing. I've got Google Analytics watching our statistics, and I check from time to time to see if they tell me anything. Mostly they tell me that people looking at the repository are largely from the UK and looking for the repository specifically, so far, but I expect that to change as the content in the repository grows. People will be reading the articles themselves, discovered through search engines, if our repository follows the same pattern as others.

Marie and Christina have been processing and cataloguing the submissions, respectively, and we now have 146 items in the repository, most of which are full text. Marie is now writing to authors about their articles in the repository and we're getting feedback from them about the way it works. The Subject teams are also working with us, monitoring Zetoc alerts so that we can write to our authors and ask them to deposit in the repository at a time when they might still have an appropriate version.

Guidelines for the submission of electronic versions of theses have been prepared and shared with the Graduate school.

We've been testing version 3.0.5 and are about to switch to that, (today!) although the OAI test can only be done once we are live, so I have my fingers crossed that it will work.

I've been on a course to learn all about version 3.1 and I'm also co-planning an event on advocacy to be held in December, at the University of Northampton. We're focussing on practical stuff, like how to handle statistics and how to improve them... to boost advocacy efforts, because authors want evidence that it is worth their while to deposit, in my opinion. Otherwise they will never bother to keep or send us the appropriate versions of their work.

We've come a long way this summer, just because we have now got a live and working repository. Our next priorities are to speed up the deposit process for journal articles and to process some theses, as well as watching those statistics...


September 16, 2008

Muddying the waters

I went to an interesting event at Cranfield last week. It's a pre-cursor to one that Miggie Pickton of NECTAR and I are planning, to be held in December at Northampton, both on themes of advocacy. The star presenter last Tuesday, in my opinion, was Dr Bruce Jefferson, an academic at Cranfield who has done a lot of investigation into what it takes to become highly cited. In his opinion, repositories will make little difference to citation levels, and repository managers should find evidence to prove any claims that are made about raising profiles and citations. I've also been frustrated by the lack of evidence of the difference repositories make to citations, in spite of the claims: the idea is so widely used that I thought it must be easy to find evidence, when I began on this project. But the only research done has been to prove what a difference open access makes, and only the other week we heard news of a BioMed science project which proved that open access made no difference whatsoever to citation rates.

Dr Jefferson will be conducting his own experiment, putting half of his work into the repository and half not, being careful to make sure that each half has a similar weighting in terms of current popularity and weighting. Even the results of his experiment will not be empirical, of course. But they might help to prove whether repositories make any difference to citations.

Dr Jefferson also said that there are other values to a repository, than potentially raising citations, and whilst we lack evidence about citations, perhaps we ought to focus more on those.

And the reason I titled this posting "Muddying the waters" was that he had definite views on the inclusion of anything other than published, peer-reviewed journal articles. His view was "don't". Academics will only deposit their best work if they believe it will be shown amongst a collection of the best work. Academics do not want theses they have supervised to be associated with their name in institutional repositories. Nor do they want unpublished reports or research data to be housed alongside their polished articles. This assumes that people will discover repository content from within the repository itself, rather than through a web search engine. We ought to be very clear in our message to our authors, that the repository is not a destination in itself, but more of a warehouse from which people can order content to appear in their browser.

If academics are driven by citations, and if we aim to improve citation ratings, surely the repository ought to only focus on content from publications that are indexed by Web of Science, since these are the journals in which citations are counted.

So, how pure or how muddy should an institutional repository be? I personally like the idea of having separate repositories for different types of content. They can all be cross searched at an institutional level or by search engines anyway, and in separate repository instances you can use different metadata schema to suit the needs of your content and searchers. I used Google Scholar's registration form and they wanted to know that the content of the site being registered was published journal articles. So if our repository also had data sets and learning objects, presumably I would not be able to register with Google Scholar. Although I'm unsure yet whether my filling out that form has done us any good...

It seems to me that repositories that are being established to achieve all sorts of purposes are in danger of achieving none of them. We're primarily focussed on journal articles and PhD theses, because the project aims said we would be and we don't have the resource to diversify from this if we are to achieve our targets, but even we have some reports and working papers as well, at the request of our academics. The reports in particular do not have a natural home online anywhere else. But I'm not sure yet what to recommend as a repository content policy at the end of this project.


September 2008

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Aug |  Today  | Oct
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30               

Visit the WRAP repository

Twitter Feed

Search this blog

Tags

Galleries

Most recent comments

  • @Jackie, thanks! I'm very proud of the team and everything we have achived in the past year. Looking… by Yvonne Budden on this entry
  • That's an impressive amount of full text Yvonne. Congratulations to everyone at Warwick. by Jackie Wickham on this entry
  • In my opinion the DEA is a danger to digital liberties and should be thrown out, period Andy @ Lotto… by Andy on this entry
  • Has anyone tried an assessment using the suggested PIs– including the author of the paper? It seems … by Hannah Payne on this entry
  • Hi Yvonne I came across this article myself recently. And I was wondering how much of an issue this … by Jackie Wickham on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXX