I absolutely agree that we should put metadata up for the new faculty. I
guess I was just unsure about allowing versions of the full text going
up. So, for example, Elsevier says we can put up a postprint, but is
that only if the researcher did the work at our university??
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Stuart
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 10:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: new faculty and IR publications
My personal thought on this one:
Q: What is the primary factor for ranking researchers?
A: Citations.
Surely the aim, therefor, of the researcher is to market her work as
widely as possible, to maximise the potential for citation.
Given that we are now in the Information Age, where The Internet is the
primary source of answers (backed up by reading what has been found, on
paper), then the sensible solution is to place enough of the research
results on the Internet such that they can be found and assessed, and
followed up.
Where, in the Internet, this material is placed is almost moot: the
Internet has no location per sae - Search Engines index everything,
everywhere.
In other words: Academics would want to deposit ALL of their material in
the same place, and leave the de-duplciation problem to the likes of
Google (Scholar)
Piegza, Amanda M. wrote:
> I have been wondering about the self-archiving policies for new
faculty
> members to my campus. Basically, I have been assuming that
> self-archiving only applies to when a researcher does her/his research
> at the institution that has the IR, and therefore , new faculty
members'
> previous publications do not apply. Am I correct in this assumption?
Or
> can we archive (when allowed by publisher) 'old' works by a new
faculty
> member?
--
Ian Stuart.
Bibliographics and Multimedia Service Delivery team,
EDINA,
The University of Edinburgh.
http://edina.ac.uk/
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
|