Stevan, Bill,
The problem is that the item referred to may have been published in a peer reviewed journal but the full text available from the repository may not be the final peer reviewed version. Is this peer reviewed or not? Strictly it is not but it is the best copy we can provide of a peer reviewed item. Ideally we need to distinguish between the item status (peer reviewed) and the full text status (non-peer reviewed). As far as I am aware EPrints does not support this out of the box. Also it is not clear how one would represent this to a harvester program.
This is related to a note I sent previously asking if the repository should be seen as a store (and delivery mechanism) or as a publication list. If it is a store (as indicated by the name 'repository') the associated metadata should describe the item contained which in many cases will be a non-refereed version of a refereed article.
Finally, there is a certain amount of academic snobbishness about peer-review, in many non-STM subjects the peer-reviewed article in not the main form of accepted publication and in others the first publication of new knowledge is in conference or working papers which may be later written up for journal publication. Any system that automatically says 'refereed=good', 'non-refereed=bad' is going to miss a lot of good quality material.
It occurs to me that what we need is a post-publication quality indicator - otherwise known as a weighted citation-count :-) . Could we automatically include this in our repositories (taken from a central service?) or should we leave this to the search services?
Regards,
John Smith,
University of Kent.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 29 February 2008 18:07
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Required and Desirable metadata in a repository
>
> 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.)
TEXT DELETED
> 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.
|