Hi Patrick,
We generally don't differentiate between different versions. Authors use arXiv for rapid communication, not necessarily for depositing final versions. If we get an updated version we replace the original but we prefer to have some version than none at all so at this stage we're not spending too much time testing which version it is.
With regards finding affiliations, it was originally too difficult to identify our own authors in arXiv and the decision was anyway made to build a comprehensive repository or all papers of interest to our users - so that when doing literature searches, they just needed to use the CERN database to find books, papers, conferences, etc and so we harvested anything within our fields. We do have to compile a list of all CERN publications for the annual report and for this use a combination of small search programs and manual validation to identify the CERN-authored documents among these. This is actually a very time-consuming and tricky job requiring someone with a good knowledge of the field.
Finally, and this should answer Paul's question too, we don't alert our authors about our uploads. Too many jobs and too little time! As long as they deposit their full-text somewhere we can find it, we don't really care. In fact, I would say it seems to encourage them to deposit if they find their documents already there - the library looks like it knows what it's doing if it can find their documents, and they are impressed that by putting a copy somewhere public, it will get shared around interested research institutions. I have had several researchers express admiration that we have their papers available, and more than one add that they must upload their latest..
What we do hope and need to start doing is to alert authors when we find metadata but *no* full-text, so that they can send us their full-text themselves. Still waiting for some technical developments before we can start that..
Best wishes, Joanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list on behalf of Patrick Fitzgerald
Sent: Fri 6/9/2006 10:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Subject based repositories
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
|