 |
 |
Bill Hubbard is spot-on on the utility of am explicitly searchable field indicating whether or not an item has been peer reviewed. The EPrints software has such a tag. (It is only likely to be useful at a harvester level, as individual repositories (IR) are only likely to be searched for institution-internal purposes. So this is a metadatum worth displaying for harvesters, and harvesters should set up in such a way as to make it possible to search on only the peer-reviewed items, if the user wishes.) I am not certain, however, about the usefulness or urgency of a "copyright" tag at this time, for either author or user: This might possibly be useful institution-internally (e.g., for IP vigilantes -- though one wonders whether they would trust an author's self-assessment!) but I doubt they would be useful at the webwide user level. Individual users certainly don't need to see or know the copyright information, in order to view the item on-screen, download it, print it off, and store it locally. (Users certainly don't worry about that in accessing the billions (trillions?) of other kinds of items that are web-readable!) It would only be relevant if the individual user wished to re-post or republish the journal article -- and I'd be inclined to treat that rare and non-fundamental usage-need as a special case, one not requiring a universal tag to facilitate it at this time -- especially because as OA content will grow, the copyright picture will change, and these extra re-use rights will eventually become part of the default conditions for OA content. I'd be inclined to say the same about the utility of an explicit copyright status tag for the sake of harvesters who wish to put the article in a database or to data-mine it: Again, harvesters like Google do this already, without further ado, for the billions (trillions) of items on the web already. It is hard to imagine that the minuscule portion of all that web content that OA content represents (c. 2.5 million articles per year) warrants or necessitates explicit copyright tagging at this time. Stevan Harnad On 08-02-29, at 12:10, Hubbard Bill wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Just picking up on Ian Stuart's question as to opinion on "Required" > and > "Desired" metadata fields for eprints records. > > Could I ask colleagues how they view a "peer-reviewed" field? > > In terms of what users want, my own experience from talking to > academics > is that when faced with a mass of Open Access eprints the great > majority > have asked unprompted about how to search only within peer-reviewed > material. > > And for this facility we need to give services a peer-review field, > unless they start interpolating from other metadata features like > journal-title or somesuch. > > Copyright and peer-review (p-r) are the two topics that can be > guaranteed to come up in academic discussions in relation to > repositories: the first from their perspective as an author, the second > from their perspective as researcher/user. > > My strong suspicion is that most of those academics that haven't asked > about a p-r filter would want the feature before they used OA material > as a habitual source for research. Again, it may be that they didn't > ask > because they assumed that it was all p-r, or, that it was all non-p-r. > (I have found repositories have a slighted reputation in some quarters > (often BioMedical) as being all referred to as "pre-print servers"). > > In terms of ingest, I think that the author is the best person to know > if their eprint has been p-r'd and that a peer-review tick-box would be > an acceptable additional task. Authors are generally pleased that their > article has passed p-r and would probably be happy about noting that. > As > to how that information is recorded, that is another matter. > > Does this agree with other colleagues' experience? Is a p-r field > required to facilitate future use of the material? > > Regards, > > Bill > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Repositories discussion list >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Stuart >> Sent: 21 February 2008 14:41 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Required and Desirable metadata in a repository >> >> [This is primarily a question for those involved in repositories for >> e-prints, but others may have interesting views] >> >> Within your own Repository, what [primarily metadata] fields are >> *Required* and what are *Desired*? >> >> If you were advising a fellow Institution about setting up a >> repository, >> what fields would you advise as *Required* and what are *Recommended*? >> >> If you were to harvest[1] from a repository, what fields would you >> consider essential, and what would you consider helpful? >> >> Following on from that: if you were to harvest the Depot (or even the >> Intute Repository Search), how would you hope to identify[2] deposits >> that could be imported into your own Institutional Repository >> >> [1] This is where I come in: The depot will have a transfer >> service, but >> what to transfer? >> [2] I've had loads of thoughts on this one, and they all seem >> to spiral >> and knit and knot and hide their threads, and not actually >> conclude in >> any meaningful way.... for me. >> >> >> -- >> >> Ian Stuart. >> Developer for The Depot, >> EDINA, >> The University of Edinburgh. >> >> http://edina.ac.uk/ >> > > -- > > Bill Hubbard > SHERPA Manager > > SHERPA - www.sherpa.ac.uk > RSP - www.rsp.ac.uk > RoMEO - www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo > JULIET - www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet > OpenDOAR - www.opendoar.org > > SHERPA > Greenfield Medical Library > University of Nottingham > Queens Medical Centre > Nottingham > NG7 2UH > UK > > Tel +44(0) 115 846 7657 > Fax +44(0) 115 846 8244 > > * * * * * * * * > > > This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an > attachment > may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer > system: > you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with > the > University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK > legislation.