Ranking Web of repositories: End users point of view?

Transcription

1 Brasilia (Brazil), 19 th October 2012 Ranking Web of repositories: End users point of view? Isidro F. Aguillo Editor of the Rankings Web Cybermetrics Lab CSIC. Spain

2 2 Agenda A classification of repositories A common portal or different websites? Institutional repositories A new role, with focus on added value Good practices: end user point of view Citing correctly the resources Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Repositories Background, objectives and methodology Brazilian results: Preliminary analysis Future developments

3 3 A classification of repositories By provider Personal (or group) homepages Institutional repositories Subject repositories Portal of e-journals By content Metadata (no full text) Preprints/postprints Thesis/MS Thesis Formal plus informal contents (raw data?) Learning objects Digitised Archives (all formats) Metarepositories Directories Harversters

4 4 One portal or different websites? Different contents, different objectives, different treatment One shop concept is only supported by technical reasons (common management software) Very confusing for the end users: Preservation (thesis, archives), evaluation (papers), dissemination (journals), teaching/research (multimedia objects, raw data) Formal scholarly communication Requires specific treatment for providing profiles for use in academic evaluation Policy relevant bridge to CRIS (Current Research Information Systems) Educational supporting material A common source is a totum revolutum without links to specific courses and professors Local e-journals portal Involves contributions by authors from external institutions Harvesting: Sharing or stealing? Branding and intellectual moral rights in danger

5 5 An example of CRIS eurocris.org digitalcsic.es

6 6 Redalyc journals redalyc.uaemex.mx

7 7 Institutional repositories The tangible and intangible treasure of the institution Under the full control and management of the institution Open Access (no restrictions) Intellectual property, but also brand and moral rights to be preserved Librarians in charge, but not the library ownership High rank in the webdomain: Not only a catalog Metadata are important, but not so important Emphasis in full text records Rich environment A short list of suggested added-value extras News Personal (groups, departments, faculties, schools) profiles Reports (focusing on contents) Links to/from third parties (CRIS, Social web, Citation databases) Statistics

8 8 A few examples rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu

9 9 Independent projects

10 10 Added-value extras digital.csic.es

11 11 Profiling (I) library.wur.nl/way/

12 12 Profiling (II)

13 13 Usage, Citations and Mentions plosone.org

14 14 UT statistics with eprints IRStats eprints.qut.edu.au wiki.eprints.org/w/irstats

15 15 Exploiting combined resources rian.ie

16 16 Good practices Permanent URLs: Is it really a good idea? Technical management of internal DNS pretty easy: purls are needed due to laziness, lack of professionalism or misunderstanding in the ICT departments Permanent systems are under external (foreign, private) control purls do not identify institutions, authors or titles DOIs are linked to journals (and editors) The end users of repositories are mainly other authors Paper deposit can increase visibility and probably impact (citations) if personal and institutional authorship is clearly unambiguously attributed Items in repositories should be citable Citable items are the full text files, not the metadata webpage The URLS should be easy to use, avoiding long strings of useless meaningless characters or numbers Web domain of the institution, author(s) name and other semantic valuable info should be provided in the URL Repository name should clearly and explicitly included in the host name Branding and moral rights are very relevant aspects of intellectual property

17 17 Citing a record

18 18 Citing a record! repositorio.ufpa.br

19 19 Permanent(?)URLs

20 20 Institutional (?) repository ings%20jnr%20manuscript%20jan%205th% pdf?sequence=11 aut.researchgateway.ac.nz

21 21 Hosted Institutional repository wlv.openrepository.com

22 22 Ranking Web of Repositories Background and objectives Inspired by the Ranking Web (Webometrics) of Universities, the Ranking of Repositories started in 2008 The aim is to support Open Access initiatives in universities and research centers. A secondary objective is to promote good practices Current situation The ranking is published two times (January and July editions) per year Conditions: An independent web domain/sub-domain and focus on research mission The current edition (July 2012) analyzes 1611 repositories (including 1438 institutional ones and 111 portals ) Methodology The composite indicator is evolving for better reflecting the repositories performance, but respecting the ratio 1:1 between the weights of activity and impact indicators Size: Number of web pages (by Google), excluding the rich files (10%) Visibility: Combining external inlinks and referred domains according to the two major providers of link data: Majestic SEO y ahrefs (50%). Rich files: Total files of these types (by Google): pdf, doc+docx, ppt+pptx and ps+eps (10%) Scholar: The total number of papers in Google Scholar for the 5-year period (30%)

23 23 Ranking webometrics repositories.webometrics.info

24 24 Brazilian repositories Leaders in Latin-American 35 institutional repositories (Brazilian universities are over 200 plus several hundreds higher education institutions more) 4 Brazilian repositories in the Top 10 of the Region Scielo, the most important portal in the world Current problems Most of the contents are thesis and dissertations Google Scholar indexing below the expected coverage Servers slow or down (frequently?) Lack of explicit suffixes (e.g.: pdf in Acrobat files) Criteria for naming and citing records and all-in-one strategies should be discussed Technical developments regarding added value services are badly needed

25 25 Brazil in the Ranking repositories.webometrics.info/en1/ Latin_America/Brazil

26 26 Final comments A personal view The best practices presented here are only a personal view of a papers author not strongly linked to the librarian orthodoxy But repository managers should be aware of some of the problems commented and their impact on the authors self-population databases Future developments in the ranking Composite indicator will be rebuilt giving more importance to Google Scholar and the full-text files correctly named (explicit suffixes like.pdf) Current classification is not reflecting the repositories diversity yet, but we are considering a wider definition of portal that means many institutional repositories are candidate to be transferred

27 27 Obrigado! Questions? Contact Info Isidro F. Aguillo, HcDr Cybermetrics Lab. CSIC. Madrid. Spain