Interesting debate on the Research Assessment Exercise and IRs.
From the responses so far I tend to agree with John Smith at Kent that
unpublished material is (or will in the future) be as much worth to
research output for an institution as anything else, as long as it is
used and cited. That this shouldn't necessarily be a so-called vanity
project.
"...once we move away from the concept of 'impact factors' and use
individual article citation analysis instead, peer review will merely
be
the first stage (and not necessarily the most important) in assessing
the
real value of someone's work." (John Smith, Kent)
I was interested to know from Morag Greig's response about how the RAE
factored into the "confusion" of academics who were unwilling to
deposit into the IR because of it not being a substitute for
peer-review.
Could Morag describe this a little more? I would like to use the RAE
exercise as an inducement, but it sounds like a deterent from
depositing (in the gathering of materials at least).
Thanks
John Murtagh
As of 20th March - Brunel University Research Archive (BURA)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:12:20 -0000
From: Morag Greig <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
Mandat e
It's worth pointing out that many repositories have gone to some
lengths to
explain to authors that repositories are (in most cases) NOT a
substitute
for publication in a peer reviewed journal (whether that be an OA
journal or
a subscription journal). Confusion over this issue has lead to many
academics being unwilling to deposit in their institutional
repositories.
Morag Greig
*********************************************
Morag Greig
Glasgow ePrints Service
Glasgow University Library
Hillhead Street
Glasgow G12 8QE
Tel: 0141 330 6797
Fax: 0141 330 4952
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
JISC-REPOSITORIES automatic digest system
Sent: 16 March 2006 00:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: JISC-REPOSITORIES Digest - 14 Mar 2006 to 15 Mar 2006
(#2006-50)
There are 16 messages totalling 1301 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access Mandate
(8)
2. Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access Mandat e
3. Data/Digital Curation
4. Use of Navigational Tools in a Repository
5. Publication? was: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University
Open
Access Mandate (3)
6. Publication?
7. University Open Access Repositories and RAE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:50:57 +0100
From: Wolfgang Greller <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
Mandate
------=_Part_2371_20306149.1142416257555
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Can anyone tell me whether articles published in an institutional
e-print repository count as publication in UK RAE terms?
Cheers
Wolfgang
Dr Wolfgang Greller
Head of e-Learning
University of Klagenfurt
Austria
------=_Part_2371_20306149.1142416257555
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
<div>Can anyone tell me whether articles published in an
institutional= e-print repository count as publication in UK RAE
terms?</div> <div> </div> <div>Cheers</div> <div>Wolfgang</div>
<div> </div> <div>Dr Wolfgang Greller</div> <div>Head of
e-Learning</div> <div>University of Klagenfurt</div>
<div>Austria</div>
------=_Part_2371_20306149.1142416257555--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:10:15 +0000
From: Leslie Carr <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
Mandate
Whether articles are disseminated by an institutional repository is
irrelevant to RAE assessment.
It is whether they have been published by a journal (or conference or
whatever the assessment panel uses as a criterion) that matters.
In other words, appearing in an IR does not make an article
"published" in the eyes of the RAE.
--
Les Carr
On 15 Mar 2006, at 09:50, Wolfgang Greller wrote:
> Can anyone tell me whether articles published in an institutional e-
> print repository count as publication in UK RAE terms?
>
> Cheers
> Wolfgang
>
> Dr Wolfgang Greller
> Head of e-Learning
> University of Klagenfurt
> Austria
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:00:09 -0000
From: "C.Oppenheim" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
Mandate
I don't agree with Les.
Panels are instructed to consider *any* sort of published output, and
this would consider something that had only ever appeared on an IR, or
on a web page; indeed, statistics from the last RAE show that a small
proportion of the items examined by the panels were in web page form
only. However, if you want to impress the RAE panel, the item should
have been through a proper refereeing process.
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU
Tel 01509-223065
Fax 01509-223053
e mail [log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leslie Carr" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
Mandate
> Whether articles are disseminated by an institutional repository is
> irrelevant to RAE assessment.
>
> It is whether they have been published by a journal (or conference
or
> whatever the assessment panel uses as a criterion) that matters.
>
> In other words, appearing in an IR does not make an article
"published"
> in the eyes of the RAE.
> --
> Les Carr
>
> On 15 Mar 2006, at 09:50, Wolfgang Greller wrote:
>
>> Can anyone tell me whether articles published in an institutional
e-
>> print repository count as publication in UK RAE terms?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> Dr Wolfgang Greller
>> Head of e-Learning
>> University of Klagenfurt
>> Austria
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:12:20 -0000
From: Morag Greig <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
Mandat e
It's worth pointing out that many repositories have gone to some
lengths to
explain to authors that repositories are (in most cases) NOT a
substitute
for publication in a peer reviewed journal (whether that be an OA
journal or
a subscription journal). Confusion over this issue has lead to many
academics being unwilling to deposit in their institutional
repositories.
Morag Greig
*********************************************
Morag Greig
Glasgow ePrints Service
Glasgow University Library
Hillhead Street
Glasgow G12 8QE
Tel: 0141 330 6797
Fax: 0141 330 4952
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of C.Oppenheim
Sent: 15 March 2006 11:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
Mandate
I don't agree with Les.
Panels are instructed to consider *any* sort of published output, and
this
would consider something that had only ever appeared on an IR, or on a
web
page; indeed, statistics from the last RAE show that a small
proportion of
the items examined by the panels were in web page form only. However,
if
you want to impress the RAE panel, the item should have been through a
proper refereeing process.
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU
Tel 01509-223065
Fax 01509-223053
e mail [log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leslie Carr" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
Mandate
> Whether articles are disseminated by an institutional repository is
> irrelevant to RAE assessment.
>
> It is whether they have been published by a journal (or conference
or
> whatever the assessment panel uses as a criterion) that matters.
>
> In other words, appearing in an IR does not make an article
"published"
> in the eyes of the RAE.
> --
> Les Carr
>
> On 15 Mar 2006, at 09:50, Wolfgang Greller wrote:
>
>> Can anyone tell me whether articles published in an institutional
e-
>> print repository count as publication in UK RAE terms?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> Dr Wolfgang Greller
>> Head of e-Learning
>> University of Klagenfurt
>> Austria
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 06:21:23 -0500
From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
Mandate
All this means is that RAE also considers unpublished papers. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not those papers were self-
archived on the web. (Plus, as we know, and as many studies by
Charles himself has shown, the RAE outcome is highly correlated with
the citation counts of the journal articles submitted; and
Departments place high -- too high -- emphasis on the "citation
impact factor" of the journal in which the 4 articles selected for
submission were published.)
So although the RAE nominally considers all papers, and it definitely
does not count citations directly, there is considerable emphasis on
journal articles on both sides. Moreover, I profoundly doubt that
many RAE submissions actually get read (let alone read by someone as
competent to evaluate them as the referees of the journal in which
the originally appeared). So the fate of an unpublished manuscript
amounts to the fate of a book judged by its cover (without even the
help of its publisher and his prior track record for quality)...
Stevan Harnad
On 15-Mar-06, at 6:00 AM, C.Oppenheim wrote:
> I don't agree with Les.
>
> Panels are instructed to consider *any* sort of published output,
> and this would consider something that had only ever appeared on an
> IR, or on a web page; indeed, statistics from the last RAE show
> that a small proportion of the items examined by the panels were in
> web page form only. However, if you want to impress the RAE panel,
> the item should have been through a proper refereeing process.
>
> Charles
>
> Professor Charles Oppenheim
> Department of Information Science
> Loughborough University
> Loughborough
> Leics LE11 3TU
>
> Tel 01509-223065
> Fax 01509-223053
> e mail [log in to unmask]
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leslie Carr"
<[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
> Mandate
>
>
>> Whether articles are disseminated by an institutional repository
>> is irrelevant to RAE assessment.
>>
>> It is whether they have been published by a journal (or conference
>> or whatever the assessment panel uses as a criterion) that matters.
>>
>> In other words, appearing in an IR does not make an article
>> "published" in the eyes of the RAE.
>> --
>> Les Carr
>>
>> On 15 Mar 2006, at 09:50, Wolfgang Greller wrote:
>>
>>> Can anyone tell me whether articles published in an institutional
>>> e- print repository count as publication in UK RAE terms?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Wolfgang
>>>
>>> Dr Wolfgang Greller
>>> Head of e-Learning
>>> University of Klagenfurt
>>> Austria
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:57:16 +0000
From: Leslie Carr <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
Mandate
I concur with m'learned colleague who is indeed quite accurate in his
statement.
I would, however, emphasise his final qualification starting "If you
want to impress..."
--
Les
On 15 Mar 2006, at 11:00, C.Oppenheim wrote:
> I don't agree with Les.
>
> Panels are instructed to consider *any* sort of published output,
> and this would consider something that had only ever appeared on an
> IR, or on a web page; indeed, statistics from the last RAE show
> that a small proportion of the items examined by the panels were in
> web page form only. However, if you want to impress the RAE panel,
> the item should have been through a proper refereeing process.
>
> Charles
>
> Professor Charles Oppenheim
> Department of Information Science
> Loughborough University
> Loughborough
> Leics LE11 3TU
>
> Tel 01509-223065
> Fax 01509-223053
> e mail [log in to unmask]
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leslie Carr"
<[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
> Mandate
>
>
>> Whether articles are disseminated by an institutional repository
>> is irrelevant to RAE assessment.
>>
>> It is whether they have been published by a journal (or conference
>> or whatever the assessment panel uses as a criterion) that matters.
>>
>> In other words, appearing in an IR does not make an article
>> "published" in the eyes of the RAE.
>> --
>> Les Carr
>>
>> On 15 Mar 2006, at 09:50, Wolfgang Greller wrote:
>>
>>> Can anyone tell me whether articles published in an institutional
>>> e- print repository count as publication in UK RAE terms?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Wolfgang
>>>
>>> Dr Wolfgang Greller
>>> Head of e-Learning
>>> University of Klagenfurt
>>> Austria
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:46:00 +0000
From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
Mandate
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Wolfgang Greller wrote:
> Can anyone tell me whether articles published in an institutional
e-print
> repository count as publication in UK RAE terms?
Absolutely not! "Publication" in the UK RAE and in every other
sensible
venue, means (in the case of research articles) publication in a
reputable
peer-reviewed journal, not vanity self-publication.
Nor is OA self-archiving self-publication. It is access-provision --
providing supplementary access to an already-published article, in
order to maximise its usage and impact, not in order to generate a
spurious entry under "Publications" in one's CV. The place in one's
CV for unpublished papers is, as always, "Unpublished Papers."
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8705/01/resolution.htm#1.4
Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-F
orum.=
html
Chaire de recherche du Canada Professor of Cognitive Science
=
=20
Ctr. de neuroscience de la cognition Dpt. Electronics & Computer
Science
Universit=E9 du Qu=E9bec =E0 Montr=E9al University of
Southampton =
=20
Montr=E9al, Qu=E9bec Highfield, Southampton
Canada H3C 3P8 SO17 1BJ United Kingdom
http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:06:44 -0000
From: "C.Oppenheim" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
Mandate
Sorry, Stevan, but the RAE official criteria states that "any form
of=20
publicly available assessable output....and confidential outputs that
ar=
e=20
not publicly available" are acceptable for submission to the RAE and
wil=
l=20
be considered. The RAE criteria are FAR broader than Stevan states,
and=20
include IR items. However, it would be unwise to submit something
that =
was=20
only available as an unrefereed item on an IR, as it would be (by=20
implication) of low quality. So the rules don't stop you doing it,
but a=
n=20
institution should think carefully before following such a course of
acti=
on.
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU
Tel 01509-223065
Fax 01509-223053
e mail [log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Stevan Harnad" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
Manda=
te
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Wolfgang Greller wrote:
> Can anyone tell me whether articles published in an institutional
e-pri=
nt
> repository count as publication in UK RAE terms?
Absolutely not! "Publication" in the UK RAE and in every other
sensible
venue, means (in the case of research articles) publication in a
reputabl=
e
peer-reviewed journal, not vanity self-publication.
Nor is OA self-archiving self-publication. It is access-provision --
providing supplementary access to an already-published article, in
order to maximise its usage and impact, not in order to generate a
spurious entry under "Publications" in one's CV. The place in one's
CV for unpublished papers is, as always, "Unpublished Papers."
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8705/01/resolution.htm#1.4
Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-F
oru=
m.html
Chaire de recherche du Canada Professor of Cognitive Science
Ctr. de neuroscience de la cognition Dpt. Electronics & Computer
Scien=
ce
Universit=E9 du Qu=E9bec =E0 Montr=E9al University of
Southampton
Montr=E9al, Qu=E9bec Highfield, Southampton
Canada H3C 3P8 SO17 1BJ United Kingdom
http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harna=
d/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:34:44 +0000
From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
Mandate
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Charles is well-conflating=20
letter and spirit here:
Yes, the RAE officially countenances and counts unpublished papers
too.
No, they don't count for much -- and they don't count as
"publications," for either the RAE or your own academic CV.
The query was: Does RAE count self-archived, unpublished papers as
published papers?
The answer is: No it doesn't. But is does count unpublished
papers,
if submitted, whether self-archived or not.
Letter: RAE "counts" unpublished papers, but they don't count
(weigh in) as "publications."
Spirit: Best not to submit unpublished papers to RAE
Relevance to OA self-archiving, one way or the other: Zero
Might there be some unpublished jewels out there? Possibly. Is RAE
likely
to read and recognise their true value? Very unlikely. Moral: submit
them to a reputable journal for peer review first; then the journal
tag,
at least, can do its job for RAE. And self-archive them too, to
maximise
their usage and impact.
Stevan Harnad
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, C.Oppenheim wrote:
> Sorry, Stevan, but the RAE official criteria states that "any form
of=20
> publicly available assessable output....and confidential outputs
that ar=
e=20
> not publicly available" are acceptable for submission to the RAE
and wil=
l=20
> be considered. The RAE criteria are FAR broader than Stevan states,
and=
=20
> include IR items. However, it would be unwise to submit something
that =
was=20
> only available as an unrefereed item on an IR, as it would be (by=20
> implication) of low quality. So the rules don't stop you doing it,
but a=
n=20
> institution should think carefully before following such a course of
acti=
on.
>=20
> Charles
>=20
> Professor Charles Oppenheim
> Department of Information Science
> Loughborough University
> Loughborough
> Leics LE11 3TU
>=20
> Tel 01509-223065
> Fax 01509-223053
> e mail [log in to unmask]
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: "Stevan Harnad" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access
Manda=
te
>=20
>=20
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Wolfgang Greller wrote:
>=20
> > Can anyone tell me whether articles published in an institutional
e-pri=
nt
> > repository count as publication in UK RAE terms?
>=20
> Absolutely not! "Publication" in the UK RAE and in every other
sensible
> venue, means (in the case of research articles) publication in a
reputabl=
e
> peer-reviewed journal, not vanity self-publication.
>=20
> Nor is OA self-archiving self-publication. It is access-provision --
> providing supplementary access to an already-published article, in
> order to maximise its usage and impact, not in order to generate a
> spurious entry under "Publications" in one's CV. The place in one's
> CV for unpublished papers is, as always, "Unpublished Papers."
>=20
> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8705/01/resolution.htm#1.4
>=20
> Stevan Harnad
> American Scientist Open Access Forum
>
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-F
oru=
m.html
>=20
> Chaire de recherche du Canada Professor of Cognitive
Science
> Ctr. de neuroscience de la cognition Dpt. Electronics & Computer
Scien=
ce
> Universit=E9 du Qu=E9bec =E0 Montr=E9al University of
Southampton
> Montr=E9al, Qu=E9bec Highfield, Southampton
> Canada H3C 3P8 SO17 1BJ United Kingdom
> http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harna=
d/
>=20
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:08:45 +0000
From: Steve Hitchcock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Data/Digital Curation
JISC projects that are interested in repositories *and* preservation
can
join this cluster group
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/Category:Repositorie
s_and_preservation_cluster
Steve Hitchcock
Preserv Project Manager
IAM Group, School of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 3256 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865
http://preserv.eprints.org/
At 17:38 14/03/2006, Sheila Anderson wrote:
>Hi Dawn,
>It is probably worth taking a look at the preservation section of the
AHDS
>website, as well as the SHERPA DP project pages - we have our
preservation
>policy there, plus digital preservation handbooks and some other
useful
>stuff. There is also a bibliography which is a little out of date
but
>might be useful.
>
><http://www.ahds.ac.uk/preservation/index.htm>http://www.ahds.ac.uk/p
reservation/index.htm
>
>I'd also recommend taking a look at the Library of Congress NDIPP
project
>pages - they also have some very useful reports etc.
><http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/index.html>http://www.digitalpres
ervation.gov/index.html
>
>Sheila
>
>Sheila Anderson
>Director
>Arts and Humanities Data Service
>King's College London
>26-29 Drury Lane
>London, WC2B 5RL
>Tel: 020 7848 1981
>Fax: 020 7848 1989
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>URL: <http://ahds.ac.uk/>http://ahds.ac.uk
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Repositories discussion list
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Theo Andrew
>Sent: 14 March 2006 15:47
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Data/Digital Curation
>
>Dawn,
>
>Also have a look at the SHERPA DP project-
><http://ahds.ac.uk/about/projects/sherpa-dp/>http://ahds.ac.uk/about/
projects/sherpa-dp/.
>Although focusing on repositories, SHERPA DP is creating a
collaborative,
>shared preservation environment framed around the OAIS Reference
Model.
>For me this project is interesting because although there has been a
lot
>of talk about the OAIS reference model, not many projects are
actually
>thinking about an implementation stage like this.
>
>Theo
>
>
>----------------------------
>Dr. Theo Andrew
>E-Resources Team
>Digital Library Division
>Edinburgh University Library
>Tel: 0131 651 3850
>Fax: 0131 650 3380
><http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/>www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk
>www.sherpa.ac.uk
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Repositories discussion list
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of E.A.Mallett
>Sent: 14 March 2006 15:27
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Data/Digital Curation
>
>Dear Dawn
>Have you been in touch with the Digital Curation Centre
>(<http://www.dcc.ac.uk/>http://www.dcc.ac.uk/) and the Digital
>Preservation Coalition
>(<http://www.dpconline.org/graphics/index.html>http://www.dpconline.o
rg/graphics/index.html)
>?
>These organisations have lots of useful examples of what the digital
>preservation/curation community are doing.
>Liz
>
>********************************************
>Elizabeth Mallett
>Learning Resources Project Manager
>Library and Learning Resources Centre
>The Open University
>Walton Hall
>Milton Keynes
>MK7 6AA
>
>Tel: +44 (0) 1908 655516
>email: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>Web:
><http://library.open.ac.uk/index.html>http://library.open.ac.uk/index
.html
>----------
>From: Repositories discussion list
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dawn Petherick
>Sent: 14 March 2006 15:02
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Data/Digital Curation
>Dear all,
>
>I've been asked to write a position paper on Digital/Data Curation.
I've
>been surfing around finding out what's going on in the UK and further
>afield and of course have been reading this list which I know is
focused
>on repositories, but just wondered whether anyone has any broader
policies
>in place yet? Other than your Institutional Repository and LOCKSS is
>anyone doing anything else e.g. curating/preserving E-learning
materials,
>Web-sites/pages, Research data etc etc. And if so how?
>
>Many thanks and apols for asking such a basic question!
> Dawn
>
>Dawn Petherick Tel:
+44
>(0) 121 414 2692
>Business Systems Manager - Digital Library Email:
>[log in to unmask]
>Information Services
>University of Birmingham
>Elms Road
>Edgbaston
>Birmingham B15 2TT
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:50:42 -0000
From: "MacLeod, Roderick A" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Use of Navigational Tools in a Repository
I think my original posting wasn't very clear, sorry. =20
Les rightly points out:=20
"Surely a disciplinary structure can be imposed on a set of OAI
resources by any service that wants to? Isn't that the point of
interoperaability standards - to allow reuse of information?"
Absolutely, and the literature we surveyed for
http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/perx/analysis.htm indicates that there is a
need for this sort of subject aggregation across digital repositories.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leslie Carr [mailto:[log in to unmask]]=20
> Sent: 14 March 2006 12:00
> To: MacLeod, Roderick A
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Use of Navigational Tools in a Repository
>=20
> On 13 Mar 2006, at 15:37, MacLeod, Roderick A wrote:
>=20
> > The usefulness of subject classification in repositories, from
the=20
> > information retrieval perspective, grows once numerous
repositories=20
> > are harvested together and access is facilitated via an
aggregated=20
> > subject interface. This much increases the likelihood of a=20
> potential=20
> > user to find material on any particular subject.
> This thread began as an attempt to provide evidence in an=20
> outstanding library vs academic argument about the utility of=20
> subject classifications in a repository (and hence the amount=20
> of effort that should be expended on them). The observation=20
> for a relatively large institutional repository (by current=20
> standards) was that 0.8% of article downloads are assisted by=20
> the subject index.
>=20
> You have suggested that subject classifications are more=20
> useful in aggregated collections. Do you have any data for=20
> the use of a subject interface in a (large) subject=20
> repository? Of the the largest OAI- compliant subject=20
> repositories registered in ROAR
> (archives.eprints.org) some don't use subject classifications=20
> (Citeseer, arxiv) and some do (PMC, American Memory).
>=20
> Perhaps it could be the case that beyond a particular scale,=20
> a subject interface becomes important. But beyond that again,=20
> at Internet scale, we already know that search engines have=20
> dominated over catalogues.
>=20
> But I think that it comes back to actual usage: what=20
> evidence-based practice should we recommend to the managers=20
> of new and planned repositories?
>=20
> > This has been recognised elsewhere: "Ultimately, most seekers
and=20
> > users of scholarly information are persuing a topic or train of=20
> > thought.
> > Although the publisher, author, and the institution with which
the=20
> > author was associated may be of some interest to seekers=20
> and users of=20
> > scholarly information, usually those interests pale in=20
> comparison to=20
> > the topic (and scholarly task) at hand. Ultimately, a good,=20
> > user-centric scholarly information system must meet the needs
of=20
> > students and scholars. These end-users need a system that
enables=20
> > broadcast searching across a wide variety of e-print=20
> servers, digital=20
> > libraries, and institutional digital repositories to identify
and=20
> > retrieve potentially pertinent scholarly content". Peters, T.A.=20
> > (2002). Digital
> > repositories:
> > Individual, discipline-based, institutional, consortial, or=20
> national?
> > The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(6), pp. 414-417.
>=20
> And presumably, due to the growth of interdisciplinary=20
> research, we need to offer interfaces that transcend the=20
> traditional, fixed boundaries of subject-based repositories?
>=20
> > "We feel more strongly than ever that there are significant=20
> advantages=20
> > to a disciplinary approach to electronic services=20
> supporting advanced=20
> > scholarship and higher education".
> Let's have more than feelings to offer new repositories.
>=20
> > They continue "Unfortunately, we
> > have seen little of the structure of the disciplinary community
in=20
> > electronic services." Stephen, T. and Harrison, T. (2002).
Building=20
> > systems Responsive to Intellectual Tradition and Scholarly
Culture.
> > The
> > Journal of Electronic Publishing, 8(1).
>=20
> Surely a disciplinary structure can be imposed on a set of=20
> OAI resources by any service that wants to? Isn't that the=20
> point of interoperaability standards - to allow reuse of
information?
> --
> Les Carr
>=20
> >
> > Both reported in http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/perx/analysis.htm
> >
> > Roddy MacLeod
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Repositories discussion list
> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leslie
Carr
> >> Sent: 9 March 2006 00:38
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Use of Navigational Tools in a Repository
> >>
> >> A recent discussion between some colleagues on the utility (or
> >> otherwise) of subject classification in repositories=20
> prompted me to=20
> >> undertake a brief investigation whose results I present=20
> here. (I'll=20
> >> also send this to AMSCI, so apologies for any duplicate=20
> copies that=20
> >> you see.) The discussion has broadly been between computer=20
> scientists=20
> >> and librarians over whether subject classification schemes
offer=20
> >> advantages over Google-style text retrieval; the study=20
> below looks at=20
> >> the evidence as demonstrated in the usage of one particular=20
> >> repository. As such it doesn't address the intrinsic value of=20
> >> classification, but it does offer some insight into the=20
> effectiveness=20
> >> of navigational tools (including subject
> >> classification) in the context of a repository.
> >>
> >> ----------------
> >> The University of Southampton Institutional Repository has been
in=20
> >> operation for a number of years and an official (rather than=20
> >> experimental or pilot) part of its infrastructure for just over
a=20
> >> year. As part of its capabilities, it includes lists of=20
> most recently=20
> >> deposited material, various kinds of searches, a subject=20
> tree based=20
> >> on the upper levels of the Library of Congress=20
> Classification scheme=20
> >> and an organisational tree listing the various Faculties,=20
> Schools and=20
> >> Research Groups in the University and a list of articles=20
> broken down=20
> >> by year of publication. These all provide what we hope are
useful=20
> >> facilities for helping researchers find papers (ie by=20
> time, subject,=20
> >> affiliation or content).
> >>
> >> Over a period of some 29.5 hours from 0400 GMT on March 7th 2006,
> >> 1978 "abstract" pages (ie eprints records) were downloaded=20
> from the=20
> >> repository (ignoring all crawlers, bots and spiders).
> >>
> >> Of the 1978 downloaded pages, the following URL sources=20
> (referrers,=20
> >> in web log speak) were responsible:
> >> 439 - (direct URL, perhaps cut and paste into a browser or=20
> >> clicked on from an email client)
> >> 225 EPRINTS SOTON pages
> >> 25 OTHER SOTON WEB pages
> >> 1264 EXTERNAL SEARCH ENGINES
> >> 21 EXTERNAL WEB PAGES
> >>
> >> ie the local repository facilities, including subject views
and=20
> >> searches, led to only 225/1978 =3D 11% of all downloads.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>=20
>=20
>=20
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:46:56 +0000
From: "J.W.T.Smith" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Publication? was: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for
University Open Access Mandate
Stevan, et al,
No amount of pontificating or dogmatic definition tweaking is going to
put
this genie back in the bottle. Any document made publicly available is
'published' by any reasonable definition of the word. To insist that
it is
not really published until it has been through a refereeing stage and
appeared in an acknowledged journal is rearranging the deckchairs
after
the Titanic has sunk. Many respectable research papers are appearing
(ie,
being published), being read and cited (and the citations are being
tracked by search services) before any peer review or even if no peer
review is planned. IRs are part of a new publishing system whether
their
original proponents want them to be or not.
How many IRs contain only the type of material specified by Stevan? We
are
in the planning stage for our IR and it will be limited to research
outputs but it will certainly not be limited to only refereed material
which has been (or is to be) published in a recognised journal.
Regards,
John Smith,
University of Kent.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Wolfgang Greller wrote:
>
> > Can anyone tell me whether articles published in an institutional
e-pri=
nt
> > repository count as publication in UK RAE terms?
>
> Absolutely not! "Publication" in the UK RAE and in every other
sensible
> venue, means (in the case of research articles) publication in a
reputabl=
e
> peer-reviewed journal, not vanity self-publication.
>
> Nor is OA self-archiving self-publication. It is access-provision --
> providing supplementary access to an already-published article, in
> order to maximise its usage and impact, not in order to generate a
> spurious entry under "Publications" in one's CV. The place in one's
> CV for unpublished papers is, as always, "Unpublished Papers."
>
> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8705/01/resolution.htm#1.4
>
> Stevan Harnad
> American Scientist Open Access Forum
>
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-F
oru=
m.html
>
> Chaire de recherche du Canada Professor of Cognitive
Science
> Ctr. de neuroscience de la cognition Dpt. Electronics & Computer
Scien=
ce
> Universit=E9 du Qu=E9bec =E0 Montr=E9al University of
Southampton
> Montr=E9al, Qu=E9bec Highfield, Southampton
> Canada H3C 3P8 SO17 1BJ United Kingdom
> http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harna=
d/
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:11:41 -0500
From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Publication? was: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for
University Open Access Mandate
I don't disagree with anything John writes below:
(1) Yes, web-posted, unpublished papers are being read, used, cited
=20
-- and sometimes they are even good!
(2) They can and should and are being deposited in IRs too, in =20
addition to the primary OA target: refereed journal articles.
(3) No, neither the RAE nor tenure/promotion committees nor journals
=20
regard this unpublished papers as published papers. They can and =20
should be and are being listed in CVs and cited as unpublished papers.
Where's the point of disagreement?
If unrefereed, unpublished papers deposited in IRs are to be called
=20
some sort of publication at all, then that sort of publication =20
already has a name: Vanity Press (or Self-Publication). (I prefer =20
"preprint" or "ms. in prep", because it has a more hopeful ring to
=20
it, heralding things to come, like, maybe, publication!)
Chrs, Stevan
On 15-Mar-06, at 9:46 AM, J.W.T.Smith wrote:
> Stevan, et al,
>
> No amount of pontificating or dogmatic definition tweaking is going
=20=
> to put
> this genie back in the bottle. Any document made publicly available
is
> 'published' by any reasonable definition of the word. To insist =20
> that it is
> not really published until it has been through a refereeing stage
and
> appeared in an acknowledged journal is rearranging the deckchairs
=20
> after
> the Titanic has sunk. Many respectable research papers are =20
> appearing (ie,
> being published), being read and cited (and the citations are being
> tracked by search services) before any peer review or even if no
peer
> review is planned. IRs are part of a new publishing system whether
=20
> their
> original proponents want them to be or not.
>
> How many IRs contain only the type of material specified by Stevan?
=20=
> We are
> in the planning stage for our IR and it will be limited to research
> outputs but it will certainly not be limited to only refereed
material
> which has been (or is to be) published in a recognised journal.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Smith,
> University of Kent.
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Wolfgang Greller wrote:
>>
>>> Can anyone tell me whether articles published in an institutional
=20=
>>> e-print
>>> repository count as publication in UK RAE terms?
>>
>> Absolutely not! "Publication" in the UK RAE and in every other =20
>> sensible
>> venue, means (in the case of research articles) publication in a
=20
>> reputable
>> peer-reviewed journal, not vanity self-publication.
>>
>> Nor is OA self-archiving self-publication. It is access-provision
--
>> providing supplementary access to an already-published article, in
>> order to maximise its usage and impact, not in order to generate a
>> spurious entry under "Publications" in one's CV. The place in one's
>> CV for unpublished papers is, as always, "Unpublished Papers."
>>
>> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8705/01/resolution.htm#1.4
>>
>> Stevan Harnad
>> American Scientist Open Access Forum
>> http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-=20
>> Access-Forum.html
>>
>> Chaire de recherche du Canada Professor of Cognitive =20
>> Science
>> Ctr. de neuroscience de la cognition Dpt. Electronics & =20
>> Computer Science
>> Universit=E9 du Qu=E9bec =E0 Montr=E9al University of =
Southampton
>> Montr=E9al, Qu=E9bec Highfield, Southampton
>> Canada H3C 3P8 SO17 1BJ United Kingdom
>> http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/=20=
>> ~harnad/
>>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:19:39 +0000
From: "J.W.T.Smith" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Publication?
Stevan,
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Where's the point of disagreement?
My disagreement was with your vehement reply to the question whether
placing an item in an IR was 'publication'
"Absolutely not! "Publication" in the UK RAE and in every other
sensible
venue, means (in the case of research articles) publication in a
reputable peer-reviewed journal"
> If unrefereed, unpublished papers deposited in IRs are to be called
> some sort of publication at all, then that sort of publication
> already has a name: Vanity Press (or Self-Publication). (I prefer
> "preprint" or "ms. in prep", because it has a more hopeful ring to
> it, heralding things to come, like, maybe, publication!)
It is not 'vanity press'. The purpose or intention of vanity press
publication is soley the enhancement of the author's image because
his/her
work is published. In the case of much of this unrefereed material in
IRs
the author is making information available for communication to
his/her
colleagues to inform them and possibly enhance their work. To call it
'vanity press' is to demean perfectly good material.
Further, once we move away from the concept of 'impact factors' and
use
individual article citation analysis instead, peer review will merely
be
the first stage (and not necessarily the most important) in assessing
the
real value of someone's work.
Regards,
John Smith,
Universiy of Kent.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:17:23 -0000
From: Andy Powell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Publication? was: Re: Generic Rationale and Model for
University Open Access Mandate
As far as I can tell (though I confess that I haven't read it thru =
thoroughly), the RAE "Guidance on submissions" document at
http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2005/03/rae0305.pdf=20
(June 2005) tends to talk in terms of 'outputs' (rather than =
publications). It doesn't use the word 'unpublished' anywhere. It
does =
use the words 'published' and 'publication' but these appear to be
meant =
in the looser sense that John indicates below (i.e. made available), =
e.g. as used in "internet publication"?
Oddly(?) the document also doesn't seem to talk explicitly about 'peer
=
review' except in the context of calculating research income.
So it's not clear to me that it is safe to assume that the RAE uses =
'published' (and 'publication') to mean 'peer reviewed' and =
'unpublished' to mean 'non-peer reviwed'? =20
Andy
--
Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
[log in to unmask]
+44 (0)1225 474319=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list=20
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 15 March 2006 15:12
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Publication? was: Re: Generic Rationale and=20
> Model for University Open Access Mandate
>=20
> I don't disagree with anything John writes below:
>=20
> (1) Yes, web-posted, unpublished papers are being read, used, cited
> -- and sometimes they are even good!
>=20
> (2) They can and should and are being deposited in IRs too,=20
> in addition to the primary OA target: refereed journal articles.
>=20
> (3) No, neither the RAE nor tenure/promotion committees nor=20
> journals regard this unpublished papers as published papers.=20
> They can and should be and are being listed in CVs and cited=20
> as unpublished papers.
>=20
> Where's the point of disagreement?
>=20
> If unrefereed, unpublished papers deposited in IRs are to be=20
> called some sort of publication at all, then that sort of=20
> publication already has a name: Vanity Press (or=20
> Self-Publication). (I prefer "preprint" or "ms. in prep",=20
> because it has a more hopeful ring to it, heralding things to=20
> come, like, maybe, publication!)
>=20
> Chrs, Stevan
>=20
> On 15-Mar-06, at 9:46 AM, J.W.T.Smith wrote:
>=20
> > Stevan, et al,
> >
> > No amount of pontificating or dogmatic definition tweaking=20
> is going to=20
> > put this genie back in the bottle. Any document made publicly=20
> > available is 'published' by any reasonable definition of=20
> the word. To=20
> > insist that it is not really published until it has been through
a=20
> > refereeing stage and appeared in an acknowledged journal is=20
> > rearranging the deckchairs after the Titanic has sunk. Many=20
> > respectable research papers are appearing (ie, being=20
> published), being=20
> > read and cited (and the citations are being tracked by search=20
> > services) before any peer review or even if no peer review=20
> is planned.=20
> > IRs are part of a new publishing system whether their original=20
> > proponents want them to be or not.
> >
> > How many IRs contain only the type of material specified by=20
> Stevan? =20
> > We are
> > in the planning stage for our IR and it will be limited to
research=20
> > outputs but it will certainly not be limited to only=20
> refereed material=20
> > which has been (or is to be) published in a recognised journal.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John Smith,
> > University of Kent.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Wolfgang Greller wrote:
> >>
> >>> Can anyone tell me whether articles published in an
institutional=20
> >>> e-print repository count as publication in UK RAE terms?
> >>
> >> Absolutely not! "Publication" in the UK RAE and in every other=20
> >> sensible venue, means (in the case of research articles)=20
> publication=20
> >> in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, not vanity
self-publication.
> >>
> >> Nor is OA self-archiving self-publication. It is=20
> access-provision --=20
> >> providing supplementary access to an already-published article,
in=20
> >> order to maximise its usage and impact, not in order to generate
a=20
> >> spurious entry under "Publications" in one's CV. The place=20
> in one's=20
> >> CV for unpublished papers is, as always, "Unpublished Papers."
> >>
> >> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8705/01/resolution.htm#1.4
> >>
> >> Stevan Harnad
> >> American Scientist Open Access Forum
> >> http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-
> >> Access-Forum.html
> >>
> >> Chaire de recherche du Canada Professor of Cognitive
=20
> >> Science
> >> Ctr. de neuroscience de la cognition Dpt. Electronics & =20
> >> Computer Science
> >> Universit=E9 du Qu=E9bec =E0 Montr=E9al University of =
Southampton
> >> Montr=E9al, Qu=E9bec Highfield,
Southampton
> >> Canada H3C 3P8 SO17 1BJ United Kingdom
> >> http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/ =20
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/=20
> >> ~harnad/
> >>
>=20
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:57:38 +0000
From: Leslie Carr <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: University Open Access Repositories and RAE
The IRRA project (irra.eprints.org), a part of the JISC Digital
Repositories' Programme, invites librarians, administrators and
support staff with responsibility for their institutional RAE
response to attend an information meeting on Friday April 7th at the
British Computer Society HQ in London.
The aim of the meeting is to provide a forum for support, advice and
sharing best practice for institutions who are deploying an
Institutional Repository as a part of their own Research Management
framework.
For more information, and to register for the meeting, please see
http://irra.eprints.org/bcsmeet.html
--
Les Carr & John MacColl, IRRA project managers
------------------------------
End of JISC-REPOSITORIES Digest - 14 Mar 2006 to 15 Mar 2006
(#2006-50)
**********************************************************************
*
!DSPAM:4418a845238756410034961!
|
