Tessa - (and Christian)
Absolutely, this is the major distinction between 'white' and 'grey' literature. This can be done in many ways from simply having a 'flag' to indicate if peer-reviewed or not (not recommended since depends on human update) through to recording for a 'white' publication date submitted, date accepted, date published....
Of course using CERIF as the data model (as supplied in commercial systems like PURE from Atira now Elsevier and Converis from Avedas (now Thomson-Reuters) as well as many 'homebrew' versions provides a structure to do this.
There are quite a few papers on the use of metadata in grey material in the Greynet conference series: see http://www.greynet.org/opengreyrepository.html
Best
Keith
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: [log in to unmask]
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
Past President ERCIM www.ercim.eu ([log in to unmask])
Past President euroCRIS www.eurocris.org
Past Vice President VLDB www.vldb.org
Fellow (CITP, CEng) BCS www.bcs.org
Co-chair RDA MIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/metadata-ig.html
Co-chair RDA MSDWG https://rd-alliance.org/working-groups/metadata-standards-directory-working-group.html
Co-chair RDA DICIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/data-context-ig.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Research Data Management discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pronk, T.E. (Tessa)
Sent: 19 June 2015 10:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Terminology for "secondary academic work results"
Perhaps you can make a distinction between peer-reviewed and not peer-reviewed works?
Tessa
-----Original Message-----
From: Research Data Management discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christian Willmes
Sent: vrijdag 19 juni 2015 11:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Terminology for "secondary academic work results"
Thank you, Keith.
But naming this category "grey literature" in the catalog is not very appealing to me. At least to me this term is negatively connoted. Or isn't that the case?
regards,
Christian
Am 19.06.2015 um 10:50 schrieb Keith Jeffery:
> Christian -
> What you describe is generally known as 'grey literature' and there is a whole community - with a conference series, journal etc. working on it.
> See http://www.greynet.org/ and http://www.greynet.org/greynethome.html for a start.
> Best
> Keith
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> Keith G Jeffery Consultants
> Prof Keith G Jeffery
> E: [log in to unmask]
> T: +44 7768 446088
> S: keithgjeffery
>
> Past President ERCIM www.ercim.eu ([log in to unmask])
> Past President euroCRIS www.eurocris.org Past Vice President VLDB
> www.vldb.org Fellow (CITP, CEng) BCS www.bcs.org Co-chair RDA MIG
> https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/metadata-ig.html
> Co-chair RDA MSDWG
> https://rd-alliance.org/working-groups/metadata-standards-directory-wo
> rking-group.html Co-chair RDA DICIG
> https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/data-context-ig.html
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
> intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
> recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
> return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Research Data Management discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christian
> Willmes
> Sent: 19 June 2015 09:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Terminology for "secondary academic work results"
>
> Dear english speaking research data community,
>
> I am strugling with terminology for a data catalog. I need a category for academic works that are not really publications, but also published in some sense, and do not qualify as Research Data in the strict sense (like sensor/instrument measurements, photos, 3D scans, interviews, GIS data, etc.). I talk about datasets like Posters, Presentations, Bachelor Thesises, Project Reports, etc., all the works that are not published officially and in the traditional sense like in Journal Articles, or Books.
>
> I need this category to distinguish between resources that appear on the main projects publications lists, that will display the "real"
> publications on the main project website and a category for these other works, that will be mainly for project internal communication, but also for interested public and the community, available form the data catalog on the projects database website.
>
> Until now I came up with:
>
> "Works",
> "Unpublished works",
> "Secondary works",
> "Reports, presentations and thesises",
>
> but these terms do not really cover what I mean.
>
> I would appreciate any inspirations for a good overarching term for this kind of works. The shorter the name, the better. Project partners do not want to call it just "data" because that term is reserved for research data in the above mentioned more strict sense.
>
> Thanks a lot for your help!
>
> Best regards,
> Christian
>
> http://crc806db.uni-koeln.de/
|
