> It would be
> nice to measure c2 in a similar way (downloads from repository as a
> proportion of total downloads including paid-for accesses or somesuch)
> but I can't really see how that might be done.
Measuring c2 is theoretically possible.
The JISC-funded PIRUS2 Project
(http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/inf11/pirus2.aspx) has worked on
"developing a prototype service (including technical, organizational and
economic models for a Central Clearing House) that will enable publishers,
repositories and other organizations to generate and share authoritative,
trustworthy usage statistics for the individual articles that they host".
PIRUS2 has demonstrated that it is *technically* feasible to consolidate
usage (downloads) of articles from repositories and publishers. The project
has also worked on the development of business/organization/economic models
to support the proposed service - but this area still needs further
investigation.
Paul
___________________________
Paul A S Needham
Research & Innovation Manager
Kings Norton Library
Cranfield University
Cranfield
MK43 0AL
This communication is sent in confidence to the named recipient only. If
you are not the named recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this
communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or email. The
opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the corporate views of
Cranfield University. Cranfield University accepts no liability for the
content of this email or the consequences of any actions taken on the basis
of the information provided.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andy Powell
> Sent: 07 March 2011 15:16
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: What makes a good repository?
>
> Citation strikes me as primarily being an indicator of reading (i.e.
> use) rather than re-use? (OK, you/I need to define 're-use' here! :-)
> ).
>
> Under d I think you need to separate out usefulness to the academic
> community (i.e. to other researchers?) from usefulness to the general
> public (which surely is of secondary importance?).
>
> I'm probably stating the obvious here... but counts of 'deposits',
> 'downloads' and 'citations' (roughly your c1, c2, and c3) are
> indicative of usefulness to depositors, readers and other researchers
> (roughly your d1, d2 and d3(ish - see above). In other words, c is the
> measure for d ??
>
> I think that c1 can only be measured as a proportion of the total
> scholarly output within the target community of depositors (i.e. an
> absolute number of deposits isn't all that interesting). It would be
> nice to measure c2 in a similar way (downloads from repository as a
> proportion of total downloads including paid-for accesses or somesuch)
> but I can't really see how that might be done. As you indicate, c3 is
> problematic to measure given current citation practice.
>
> I think one could make the argument that c1 (as undertaken by
> researchers themselves) is a good single metric for overall usefulness
> (on the basis that no-one would willingly take time to deposit
> something in a repository unless they were confident of it leading to
> increased downloads and citation). Mandates completely skew that
> unfortunately... and, in any case, it is/was presumably hard to
> determine real researcher-initiated deposits from those down by
> intermediaries (which, again, skews the picture)?
>
> Sorry... just thinking out loud. No real help at all!
>
> Andy
>
> --
> Andy Powell
> Research Programme Director
> Eduserv
> t: 01225 474319
> m: 07989 476710
> twitter: @andypowe11
> blog: efoundations.typepad.com
>
> www.eduserv.org.uk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Rusbridge
> Sent: 07 March 2011 11:08
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: What makes a good repository?
>
> I'm interested in the question "what makes a good repository?". Or
> perhaps, given a particular repository, how could we assess whether it
> is doing its job well? Or, well enough... to be sustainable?
>
> I've been given various answers starting from
>
> a) the repository meets its (defined) goals.
>
> OK, sounds reasonable, but the goals were probably defined in the past,
> perhaps even before the repository existed. That was then; this is a
> different world. How about...
>
> b) the repository meets real needs.
>
> Yes, I like that. But what are those real needs? I can think of two
> groups that sound similar but are subtly different...
>
> c) the repository is (well) used
> c1) by depositors
> c2) by readers
> c3) by re-users.
>
> (There are probably more important subtypes of users.) This is the set
> we often measure: c1 by total deposited items or by rates of deposit,
> c2 by accesses and downloads. We less often measure c3, but citations
> and in-links could be reasonable proxies. Both are slightly muddy as
> many repositories contain substitutes for the version of record, and
> good practice is to cite the latter (but perhaps more often link to the
> substitute). But how about...
>
> d) the repository is useful
> d1) to depositors
> d2) to its owner
> d3) to the public in general
>
> (Again this might not be the right set of subtypes.) The first of
> these, d1 is not the same as c1; repositories might be used without
> being useful to depositors. This might be because of mandates, perhaps,
> or by being "used" by librarians acting for the depositors without much
> motivation by the depositors. Much better where the repository is
> useful to the depositor. This (I think) is what the various "Negative
> Click Repository" posts were about (see posts in
> http://digitalcuration.blogspot.com/search/label/Negative%20click), and
> I think it's part of the thrust of Steve Hitchcock's DepositMO project
> (http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/depositmo/).
>
> Sustainability is in part about continuing to convince decision makers
> to keep paying the costs, so being demonstrably useful to the owner
> (d2) seems pretty important.
>
> The last subtype (d3) I've made as general as possible, believing that
> there is a real public-spirit, philanthropic nature to most
> institutions that run repositories, as well as a belief that good deeds
> can come back to reward us (casting our bread upon the waters?).
>
> I'm interested in any comments on these ideas, and particularly
> interested in any suggestions for measures of the (d) group. Does this
> make sense?
>
> --
> Chris Rusbridge
> Mobile: +44 791 7423828
> Email: [log in to unmask]
|