Hi Joanne
That sounds like a really practical solution. A couple of issues spring to
mind in relation to our current stage of development.
My understanding is that arXiv doesn't differentiate between pre and post
publication material. Does your repository need to differentiate between
these two types of material and if so how does it do so?
The second issue is the criteria you use for harvesting to make sure you
get the authors within your institution. Do you match a list of author
names within your institution to those on arXiv? Related to this is whether
you alert the authors to the fact that one of their papers has been
uploaded to your repository and how?
Regards
Patrick
--On 08 June 2006 18:24 +0200 Joanne Yeomans <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This is exactly what we do: harvest from arXiv nightly. We have a
> programme to match possible duplicates in case someone did submit to
> both repositories.
> Regards,
> Joanne
>
> ********************
> Joanne Yeomans
> Office 3/1-012, DSU/SI Service
> http://library.cern.ch/
> Mail address:
> Mailbox C27810
> CERN CH 1211 Geneva 23
> Switzerland
> Tel: 70548 (externally dial +41 22 76 70548)
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Repositories discussion list
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
>> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 5:23 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Subject based repositories
>>
>> Les describes the problem, but forgets to mention the solution! Import
>> (harvest) into the institutional repository the deposits in
>> any central repository by institutional researchers (and add
>> any missing metadata automatically or by hand). The number of
>> papers involved for any local institution is not large, and
>> this is a good way to set the institutional repository into
>> motion. Eventually, best practise will swing over to the
>> institutional archives, authors will deposit there directly,
>> and it will be the central archives that harvest (and that is
>> the natural way, if you think about it for a few minutes, the
>> institution being the primary content provider in all cases).
>>
>> Stevan Harnad
>>
>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Leslie Carr wrote:
>>
>> > Physics (as you say) and medicine are the principle
>> communities with
>> > this issue at Southampton. It also touches Maths and any
>> school which
>> > has its own (legacy) publications database.
>> >
>> > Since arXiv doesn't ask for much metadata, physicists seem
>> not keen to
>> > provide it, especially as they are getting no real OA advantage for
>> > the extra 'work'. This affects half of our physics
>> department (2 out
>> > of 4 research groups use arxiv heavily.)
>> > --
>> > Les Carr
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 1 Jun 2006, at 15:44, Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
>> >
>> > > Would anybody like to share their experience of dealing with
>> > > situations where academics are already depositing in
>> subject-based
>> > > repositories and don't see the point of doing the work twice.
>> > >
>> > > The example which I've been given is physics but clearly
>> the issue
>> > > is a broader one.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks in anticipation
>> > >
>> > > Patrick
>> > >
>> > > Patrick Fitzgerald
>> > > Institutional Repository Project Officer
>> > > The Library, University of Sussex,
>> > > BRIGHTON BN1 9QL, UK
>> > >
>> > > http://www.sussex.ac.uk/library/ir/
>> > > [log in to unmask]
>> > >
>> > > Tel +44 (0)1273 872850
>> > > Fax +44 (0)1273 678441
>> >
>>
Patrick Fitzgerald
Institutional Repository Project Officer
The Library, University of Sussex,
BRIGHTON BN1 9QL, UK
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/library/ir/
[log in to unmask]
Tel +44 (0)1273 872850
Fax +44 (0)1273 678441
|