Hello
Yes I agree that it's essential and is seen as a key concern for
academic staff (as a group of them were telling me only yesterday).
Authors should generally know the status of their own material I agree.
We use the refereed/unrefereed flag offered by the EPrints software.
I can see a potential need for three (or four) categories relating to
peer review:
1. Pre-peer reviewed (= submitted version of an article to a
peer-reviewed journal)
2. Peer reviewed (= accepted version of an article to a peer-reviewed
journal)
These would be earlier and later versions of the same type of academic
content with readers able to take their chances with the pre-peer review
version based on their knowledge of the author, but alerted to serious
academic articles - they would also look out for later versions if these
are flagged as *pre-* rather than *un-*refereed.
3. Non-peer reviewed (= article in an unrefereed journal)
This third category would thus include material of a more popular/less
academic nature and could incorporate the kinds of dissemination
articles that authors write alongside their academic papers.
And perhaps in light of Ian's comment below, a fourth to enable deposit
even where status is not known
4. Peer review status unknown
Best wishes
Frances
Frances Shipsey
eServices Librarian
Library
London School of Economics and Political Science
10 Portugal Street
London WC2A 2HD
t: +44(0)20 7955 6915
f: +44(0)20 7955 7454
e: [log in to unmask]
w: www.lse.ac.uk/library
LSE Research Online - http://eprints.lse.ac.uk - Enhance your research
impact
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Stuart
Sent: 29 February 2008 21:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Required and Desirable metadata in a repository
Hubbard Bill wrote:
> Does this agree with other colleagues' experience? Is a p-r field
> required to facilitate future use of the material?
The flip-side of this argument goes thus:
If the p-r field is required, should a Repository not accept any ingest
where that field is not present?
For example, I am looking at ways of harvesting via Google Scholar, but
GS does not hold p-r details. Should I do something like only accept
deposits that are sourced from known journal repositories?
(I'd also be interested in how many repositories *currently* support the
p-r field?)
--
Ian Stuart
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm
|