If repository managers try to rise in representation in your system, the other bad effect may be over cataloging. For example, in a project where I made available old Florida Attorney General opinions, the opinions were originally published in books. I got digitized copies of these already broken into individual opinions. Because of how the files were named and the fact that many fields repeated for all, it was not hard to make a small Dublin Core record for each. It took less than a day to make 3K Dublin Core records for three decades of opinions at the opinion level.<br>
<br>But, I'm not sure that it wouldn't have been better to just combine the pdfs and post the opinions as books, with only one record per book. Then a person could pull the book, and go to the opinion in it. In a search for "Attorney General Opinion" they would still find what they need, and with less clutter for every search for anything else.<br>
<br>The online catalog does better and puts all the books in one record for the serial.<br><br>Indexing one and two page opinions at the item level can cause problems later, especially if those ever get cross walked to MARC and someone makes a *gasp* catalog record for each.<br>
<br>I've also consistently had the problem that posting X numbers of files is measurable, but taking a horrid search and making it halfway decent is not measurable. So, guess what supervisors consider to be productive work? Yep, more things behind bad interfaces is easy to measure, so that's what gets measured and promoted. There's a lot of inertia towards that. Then normal people go to Google, and, yep, search engine optimization is also not an X number of things factor that can be easily measured. So... search engine optimization is discouraged as goofing off, and repositories maybe don't come up high in results.<br>
<br>Just saying, when you measure a number, you may or may not encourage production of more useful content.<br><br>The one absolutely wonderful thing that I see coming out of measuring OAI PMH dublin core records, is that institutions that don't do metadata, will have incentive to do metadata. Where administration looks at a digital library as a website, and does not see the significance of metadata, this will help encourage them to allow staff time to set up an OAI PMH feed in the first place. Management almost always comes from a people management background and
not from IT or technical services, so there's a huge blind spot for this
field. If you look, lots of places have 0 OAI PMH dublin core records, but they have files up. Those places are where a difference may be most dramatic.<br><br>-Wilhelmina Randtke<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Longva Leif <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:leif.longva@uit.no" target="_blank">leif.longva@uit.no</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi, Dirk<br>
<br>
It is great to hear about your plans to indicate open access to documents within BASE. Of course, for this you are dependent on the quality of the metadata you harvest from all your 2300 + sources. But as soon as you introduce an indication like this, it will add an inducement for repository managers to improve their metadata.<br>
<br>
You say an indication of real open access. Hopefully, it will be possible to limit a search within BASE to records with the full open access document(?) Like you say, this will comprise a small portion of the BASE records today. But, again, I believe your emphasis on this will lead the world of repositories towards improved metadata.<br>
<br>
So, keep up the good work!<br>
<br>
Yours<br>
Leif Longva<br>
University of Tromsø Library<br>
Norway<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Opprinnelig melding-----<br>
Fra: <a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>] På vegne av Dirk Pieper<br>
Sendt: 30. oktober 2012 12:57<br>
Til: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br>
Emne: [GOAL] Re: Repository numbers [Dirk Pieper]<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
Seb,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
You are adressing a very important question: what is the ratio of OAI metadata and Open Access full texts?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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, ...).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Dirk<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 30.10.2012 10:45, schrieb Seb Schmoller:<br>
> Dirk,<br>
> In the chart does the "Number of documents" line represent "full text<br>
> records" or "full text records and metadata only records", and if the<br>
> latter is there easily extractable data for each? (Apologies if these<br>
> terms are not strictly accurate.) Seb Schmoller<br>
><br>
> On 30/10/2012 08:14, Dirk Pieper wrote:<br>
>> Hi,<br>
>><br>
>> BASE has currently indexed 2.356 repositories, which is more than<br>
>> OpenDoar but less than ROAR have listed.<br>
>><br>
>> This page shows the growth since 2004:<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://www.base-search.net/about/en/about_statistics.php?menu=2" target="_blank">http://www.base-search.net/about/en/about_statistics.php?menu=2</a><br>
>><br>
>> Because we administer the BASE repository list every week when<br>
>> updating the index, we can assure, that there are not so many<br>
>> skeletons in the BASE index.<br>
>><br>
>> Best<br>
>> Dirk<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Am 30.10.2012 07:54, schrieb Richard Poynder:<br>
>>> Thanks for this Heather.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I think your figures come from OpenDoar<br>
>>> (<a href="http://www.opendoar.org/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.opendoar.org/index.html</a>), which currently appears to<br>
>>> list 2,217 repositories. Meanwhile ROAR (<a href="http://roar.eprints.org/" target="_blank">http://roar.eprints.org/</a>) lists 2,993.<br>
>>><br>
>>> With regard specifically to BMC's Open Repository service, OpenDoar<br>
>>> lists 20 repositories that use the service (0.9% of the market),<br>
>>> whereas ROAR lists<br>
>>> 18 (0.6%).<br>
>>><br>
>>> BMC itself lists 22 organisations that use its Open Repository<br>
>>> services (<a href="http://www.openrepository.com/customers" target="_blank">http://www.openrepository.com/customers</a>).<br>
>>><br>
>>> Richard Poynder<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>> From: <a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>] On<br>
>>> Behalf Of Heather Morrison<br>
>>> Sent: 29 October 2012 21:48<br>
>>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br>
>>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK<br>
>>> Select Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation<br>
>>><br>
>>> Open Repository is just one repository service.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The numbers for total growth of open repositories in total are much<br>
>>> more relevant. Since 2006, the numbers of open repositories around<br>
>>> the world have increased from just over 800 to over 2,200 (nearly<br>
>>> tripling in numbers), as illustrated in this growth chart in the<br>
>>> most recent Dramatic Growth of Open<br>
>>> Access:<br>
>>> <a href="http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/thank-you-open-access-mov" target="_blank">http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2012/10/thank-you-open-access-mov</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://ement.ht" target="_blank">ement.ht</a><br>
>>> ml<br>
>>><br>
>>> The repository numbers per se are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.<br>
>>> Some of the repositories up and running in 2004 were in early pilot phases.<br>
>>> It takes time to get such a service up and running, develop and find<br>
>>> support for an institutional open access policy, educate faculty and<br>
>>> students about this new service, and fill the repository. In the<br>
>>> past 8 years or so, we have gone from a point where a very few<br>
>>> institutions had early repositories to a point where I would argue<br>
>>> that an IR is a "must-have" to be taken seriously as a research institution.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The situation in British Columbia (where I work) very much reflects<br>
>>> this. In 2004, only the largest institutions either had pilot IRs or<br>
>>> IRs in the planning stages. Today, there are a number of very actively promoted IRs.<br>
>>> Currently, what we are discussing at BC Electronic Library Network<br>
>>> is a collaborative approach to ensure that all BC post-secondaries<br>
>>> have access to this important service.<br>
>>><br>
>>> best,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Heather Morrison<br>
>>> <a href="http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/" target="_blank">pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 2012-10-29, at 12:53 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Richard,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> The best person to ask about Open Repository would be Matt<br>
>>>> Cockerill,<br>
>>> director at BMC.<br>
>>>> I think you use the right term when you say that publishers 'allow'<br>
>>> self-archiving. Too often I see that interpreted as 'endorse', but<br>
>>> that is a very different thing in my view (and theirs, too, I guess).<br>
>>>> Jan<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 29 Oct 2012, at 13:40, Richard Poynder wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> Thanks for the clarification Jan.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I wonder if anyone from BMC could update the list on how popular<br>
>>>>> the Open<br>
>>> Repository service has proved, whether users are currently growing<br>
>>> or decreasing, and how many users there are at the moment etc.?<br>
>>>>> By the way, this is what BMC founder Vitek Tracz said to me in<br>
>>>>> December<br>
>>> 2004<br>
>>> (<a href="http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2006/05/interview-with-vitek-tracz.html" target="_blank">http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2006/05/interview-with-vitek-tracz.html</a>).<br>
>>>>> RP: One further complication that could perhaps retard progress is<br>
>>>>> that<br>
>>> the OA movement has forked, with advocates disagreeing over the best<br>
>>> way forward. While OA publishers like you advocate OA publishing<br>
>>> (the so-called "Gold Road" to OA) supporters of the "Green Road"<br>
>>> like Stevan Harnad argue that it is sufficient for authors to<br>
>>> continue publishing in traditional subscription-based journals, but<br>
>>> to then self-archive their papers. Does Harnad have a point?<br>
>>>>> VT: I do not think so. Self-archiving is of course very desirable,<br>
>>>>> but<br>
>>> the issue is quite simple: publishers are not really going to allow<br>
>>> authors to self-archive in an easy way, and authors are not going to<br>
>>> do it unless it is completely painless.<br>
>>>>> RP: I'm told that around 93% of journals currently do allow<br>
>>> self-archiving?<br>
>>>>> VT: They say they allow it, but publishers have merely created the<br>
>>> pretence of allowing it. They don't really. They say they allow<br>
>>> self-archiving, but authors can't just take their published papers<br>
>>> and archive them: they have to use their original manuscript,<br>
>>> without any of the corrections and changes made by the publisher.<br>
>>> They have to mark it up themselves, and they cannot use the<br>
>>> illustrations created or amended by the publisher. In practice it is<br>
>>> really quite difficult to reproduce the published paper.<br>
>>>>> If self-archiving were so easy why isn't it happening? Because in<br>
>>> practice self-archiving is impractical. That said, for those who<br>
>>> want it BioMed Central supports self-archiving by offering to help<br>
>>> institutions create repositories for their researchers' papers.<br>
>>>>> Richard Poynder<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> From: <a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>]<br>
>>>>> On<br>
>>> Behalf Of Jan Velterop<br>
>>>>> Sent: 29 October 2012 11:07<br>
>>>>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br>
>>>>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK<br>
>>>>> Select<br>
>>> Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation<br>
>>>>> In response to what we heard in the market, Richard. That our<br>
>>>>> offering<br>
>>> was launched so quickly after the Select Committee Report came out<br>
>>> was more like a happy coincidence.<br>
>>>>> Besides, should we have realised the importance of repositories as<br>
>>>>> a<br>
>>> result of the Inquiry, would there be a problem with actually<br>
>>> offering concrete assistance to repositories some time *after* we<br>
>>> realised the importance of repositories' role? Well, in our case the<br>
>>> realisation came quite some time before we offered the service.<br>
>>> These things take preparation, you know. Extraordinary, isn't it?<br>
>>>>> You may recall that we were convinced of the potential importance<br>
>>>>> of<br>
>>> repositories as evidenced already at the BOAI, and the Bethesda<br>
>>> Statement on Open Access, both of which I signed on behalf of BMC.<br>
>>>>> The point I tried to make is that we argued for OA. And yes, we<br>
>>>>> did try<br>
>>> to convince authors to publish in the fully and immediately open BMC<br>
>>> journals. Calling that "Lobbying for giving up authors' preferred<br>
>>> journals in favour of Gold OA journals" is spin. Were I to use<br>
>>> similar spin, I could say something like "the Green OA advocates are<br>
>>> lobbying for authors to be mandated to deposit their manuscripts in<br>
>>> repositories, and be forced to accept sub-optimal OA, with access<br>
>>> delays, technical and usage limitations, and problematic financing of publishing via subscriptions."<br>
>>>>> But spin is not doing Open Access justice. It is Open Access I advocate.<br>
>>> Immediate and with full re-use rights. If 'green' achieves that, too, great.<br>
>>> Most repositories do have final, published, OA articles in their<br>
>>> collections as well. Open from day one. With CC-BY licences. 'Gold'<br>
>>> is not antithetical to repositories. I don't think it is good,<br>
>>> though, to be satisfied with sub-optimal solutions just for reasons of expediency.<br>
>>>>> Jan<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 29 Oct 2012, at 10:34, Richard Poynder wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 28 Oct 2012, at 23:07, Stevan Harnad wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of pure Gold OA<br>
>>>>> journals<br>
>>> was what (I think) BMC's Vitek Tracz and Jan Velterop had been<br>
>>> lobbying for at the time<br>
>>>>> Stevan may think so, but that doesn't make it correct or accurate.<br>
>>>>> What<br>
>>> we advocated (lobbied for in Stevan's words) at the time, and what I<br>
>>> still advocate now, is open access. Period. We argued that a system<br>
>>> of open access publishing at source is better than a subscription<br>
>>> system, and we realised that repositories would likely play an<br>
>>> important role in achieving open access. That's why BMC offered<br>
>>> assistance with establishing repositories, and the company still<br>
>>> does: <a href="http://www.openrepository.com" target="_blank">http://www.openrepository.com</a><br>
>>>>> I think it would be true to say that BioMed Central launched its<br>
>>> repository service in response to the Select Committee Inquiry?<br>
>>>>> <a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/presscenter/pressreleases/20040913" target="_blank">http://www.biomedcentral.com/presscenter/pressreleases/20040913</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> GOAL mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> GOAL mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> GOAL mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
>>>> <a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> GOAL mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> GOAL mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> GOAL mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> GOAL mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>