Am 22.05.13 09:24, schrieb Angus Whyte:
> The criterion could be better expressed as ' repositories must
> publish information to enable journals and depositors to assess its
> take-up in the community it aims to serve, and the level of access
> to deposited items, e.g. how frequently these are accessed by
> repository users"
>
> In either that or the original wording, is this relevant to support
> a decision on repository recommendation in this context? If so,
> should it be 'important' or 'mandatory' for data repositories to
> publish this information?
>
> Angus
Dear Angus,
there are two points:
- should we *already* ask for a measure of take-up?
- how to measure it (counting downloads? metadata views? likes?) and
how to normalize and compare that (per community?)
As a former physicist I like to say that you cannot observe a system
without modifying it, perhaps even destroying it.
And I guess that in many communities the repository landscape is still
so fragile that the destroying clause may apply.
=> so: no *mandatory* criterion on measure of take-up *yet*
As to the counting of activity at a repository site, this can even
more easily be manipulated than the notorious Impact Factor. You would
set into motion a race for something ... probably without evidence
that it actually has a strong correlation with community take-up
(whatever *that* means) or actually: value to a community.
best,
Hans
|