JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES  March 2008

JISC-REPOSITORIES March 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Required and Desirable metadata in a repository

From:

Leslie Carr <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Leslie Carr <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 1 Mar 2008 15:33:17 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (103 lines)

The trouble with a peer-reviewed flag is that it is not the guarantor  
of research quality that many might expect it to be.
It will be set as much for an extended abstract of a position paper in  
the East Anglian Regional Workshop on Flood Awareness as it will be  
for an article on Cosmology in Nature. It will be set whether one  
person gives the article a quick going over and says "alright", or  
whether five people review it thoroughly and provide detailed feedback  
about its weaknesses.

In other words, the question is not so much "has it been peer- 
reviewed" but "has it been peer-reviewed to the standard that the  
reader thinks appropriate". And that information is usually derived  
from a knowledge of the publication outlet.
--
Les


On 29 Feb 2008, at 21:30, Frances Shipsey wrote:

> 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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
November 2005
October 2005


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager