Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

Re: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship

From: Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang AT inria.fr>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 15:02:28 +0200


Threading: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship from gerrymck AT iastate.edu
      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship from gerrymck AT iastate.edu

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 03:24:52PM -0500, Gerry Mckiernan wrote:
>                   Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship
> 
> For a forthcoming presentation [and, of course, the  obligatory associated 
Web registry and article {:-)],  I am greatly interested in the key 
articles/report/documents about  Alternative Peer Review for Scholarship, as 
well as examples of exemplar (Web-based) publishing initiatives  that have 
implemented one or more of these alternatives.
> 
>  The Alternative Models that come to mind are: 
> 
> Open Peer Review
> Formal Peer Review with Subsequent Commentary
> Commentary Only (No Prior Formal  Peer Review)
> Pre and/or Post Commentary 
> Citation-based Peer Review
> Reader-based Peer Review
> Computer-Assisted Peer Review
> Collaborative Filtering 
> Others?

and another one :

   any combination of the above,  or all combinations of the above.

   A proper architecture (and standards) could allow users to combine
as they see fit all kinds of reviews.
   briefly summarized (in french)
  http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ecrits/Exposes/Bruxelles-Egov/papierg.htm
  http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ecrits/Exposes/Bruxelles-Egov/papieri.htm

  (note: these slides were developped to show that a change in cost
structures necessarily change production structures in the long run.)

   Reviews are just data, produced by any mean, and made available on
the net (free or at cost).  You take it if you want it, and do
whatever you see fit.

Bernard

-- 
         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN

Bernard.Lang AT inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX


Re: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship

From: Radu <radu AT monicsoft.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 22:00:47 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship from gerrymck AT iastate.edu
      • This Message

Hello.

The peer review style that I notice missing among the ones you cited is the 
Discussion Forum kind.

Either moderated or free, this style is much more dynamic, thus seems 
better suited for a digital, connected medium.

One might compare it with seminar/workshop-style commentary. Oh, and there 
are MANY tools out there which make this possible (wikis, nukes, as well as 
other content management tools, OpenSource or otherwise)

At 04:24 PM 4/25/03, Gerry Mckiernan wrote:
>   I am *particularly* interested in any current research or 
> implementations that are Computer-Assisted

Cheers,
Radu
(www.monicsoft.net)


[BOAI] Scholar-based Innovations in Publishing. Part II

From: "Gerry Mckiernan" <gerrymck AT iastate.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:28:01 -0500


                    Scholar-based Innovations in Publishing.
                    Part II: Library and Professional Initiatives

    I am proud to announce the publication of the second in a three-part series 
on "Scholar-based Innovations in Publishing" in _Library Hi Tech 
News_:

Gerry McKiernan (2003) "Scholar-based Innovations in Publishing. Part II: 
Library and Professional Initiatives," _Library Hi Tech News_ Vol. 20 No. 
3 (April), pp. 19-27

    Among the initiatives profiled in this Second Part are:

*Library*

DSpace(tm) (http://dspace.org) [MIT]

E-Print Repository (http://eprints.anu.edu.au/) [Australian National 
University]

University of Michigan University Library Scholarly Publishing Office
[ http://spo.umdl.umich.edu]

*Professional*

SPARC: The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition
[http://www.arl.org/sparc/ ]

ELSSS -The ELectronic Society for Social Scientists
[ http://www.elsss.org.uk/]

The Stoa: A Consortium for Electronic Publication in the Humanities
[ http://www.stoa.org]

   Part I in the series was devoted to Individual and Institutional initiatives 
and was published in LHTN 20(2) [ Gerry McKiernan (2003) "Scholar-based 
Innovations in Publishing. Part I: Individual and Institutional 
Initiatives," _Library Hi Tech News_ Vol. 20 No. 2 (March), pp. 19-26] .  
The last part, Part III, covers organizational and national initiatives and is 
scheduled for publication in LHTN 20(5).

   Part II (as well as Part I) are also available electronically  for 
subscribers to LHTN via Emerald:

  ( http://www.emeraldinsight.com/vl=1/cl=3/nw=1/rpsv/lhtn.htmC)

NB: Please note each of these articles are contributions in my eProfile
column for LHTN.

   Enjoy!

/Gerry

Gerry McKiernan
Associate Professor
and
Science and Technology Librarian and Bibliographer
Iowa State University
Ames IA 50011

            "The Best Way To Predict the Future is to Invent It"
                                                              Alan Kay






Re: [BOAI] Current Data and Key Literature on UnCited Scholarship

From: somasi saunand <saunand AT yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 04:57:27 -0700 (PDT)


Threading: [BOAI] Current Data and Key Literature on UnCited Scholarship from gerrymck AT iastate.edu
      • This Message

[While this message is addressed to Gerry McKiernan, I hope that other 
subscribers will feel free to answer it.  --Peter Suber.]

Dear Dr. Gerry,
I received your mail through BOAI Forum. Many thanks for the mail. I wish to 
seek information on Networked Libraries and Rural development. Do you have any 
information about the subject? If so, will it be possible for you to send the 
desired information to me. I require the same for my work on the subject. I 
shall be obliged if you can send me the information. 
Thanks. 
With kind regards Yours sincerely,
S.SAUNAND
Asst. Regional Director
Indira Gandhi National Open University Regional Centre
Mantoo House 
Srinagar
JAMMU & KASHMIR
INDIA


Gerry Mckiernan <gerrymck AT iastate.edu> wrote:_Current Data and Key 
Literature on UnCited Scholarship_ 
[...]

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

ATTACHMENT: message.html!


[BOAI] Current Data and Key Literature on UnCited Scholarship

From: "Gerry Mckiernan" <gerrymck AT iastate.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:15:57 -0500


Threading:      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Current Data and Key Literature on UnCited Scholarship from saunand AT yahoo.com

    _Current Data and Key Literature on UnCited Scholarship_ 

   I am greatly interested in current data and key literature on UnCited
Scholarship. I have searched Google and found several select items, for 
example:

David P. Hamilton (1990). "Publishing by and for?-  the numbers
_Science_, New Series, 250 (4986) (December 7): 1331-1332.
[ http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/hamilton1.html  ]

David P. Hamilton (1991). "Research papers: who's uncited now?,"
_Science_, New Series,  251 (4989) (January 4):  25.
[http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/hamilton2.html ]

John A. Tainer; Helmut A. Abt; Lowell L. Hargens; David M. Bott; F. W. 
Lancaster; James H. Pannell; Edward B. Nuhfer; Charles L. McGehee; William A. 
Banks; David A. Pendlebury (1991) "Science, citation, and funding," 
_Science_  251 (5000) (March 22):1408-1411.
[http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/pendlebury.html  ]

Eugene Garfield (1998). "Commentary: I had a dream ... about
uncitedness," _The Scientist_ 12 (14) (July 6): 10.
[http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1998/July/comm_980706.html  ] 

Quentin L.Burrell (2002). "Will this paper ever be cited?," _Journal 
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology_ 
53(3)(February): 232-2002 

For a homogenous set of papers given the average rate at which a paper attracts 
citations, Burrell calculates the probability that a paper will ever be cited 
assuming it has not been cited in a given time. The longer the elapsed time 
without citation the greater the likelihood it will never be cited. 
[ http://www.asis.org/Publications/JASIS/vol53n03.html ]

Charles A. Schwartz (1997). "The rise and fall of uncitedness," 
_College & Research Libraries_ 58: (January): 19-29. 

Large-scale uncitedness refers to the remarkable proportion of articles that do 
not receive a single citation within five years of publication. Equally 
remarkable is the brief and troubled history of this area of inquiry, which was 
prone to miscalculation, misinterpretation, and politicization. This article 
reassesses large-scale uncitedness as both a general phenomenon in the 
scholarly communication system and a case study of library and information 
science, where its rate is 72 percent.

[http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ACRL/Publications/Journals_Monographic_Series/College_and_Research_Libraries/Back_Issues_1997/January97/CandRL_January_1997_abstracts.htm ]

*********************************************************** 
 I am also (particularly)  interested in Any and All articles / reports 
/studies / documents relating to the value of conventional Peer Review within 
the context of Uncitedness of Peer Viewed publications [Please do not crucify 
me for raising the issue]:-)
***********************************************************

   As Always, Any and All contributions, comments, questions, critiques, 
Government Rebuilding Contracts, and/or Cosmic Insights are Most Welcome.

  Regards,

/Gerry  
Current and Key Librarian 
Iowa State University 
Ames IA 50011

gerrymck AT iastate.edu 




Re: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:06:39 +0100 (BST)


Threading: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship from gerrymck AT iastate.edu
      • This Message

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Gerry Mckiernan wrote:

> Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship
>
> For a forthcoming presentation [and, of course, the  obligatory
> associated Web registry and article {:-)], I am greatly interested in
> the key articles/report/documents about Alternative Peer Review for
> Scholarship, as well as examples of exemplar (Web-based) publishing
> initiatives that have implemented one or more of these alternatives.

What you will find is that there has been almost no serious testing of
hypotheses about alternatives to peer review at all, and that those
"models" that have gone straight into implementation, without even
bothering to test their proposals first, are few, and based on samples
that are still too small and brief to draw any serious, generalizable
or representative conclusions from.

    Peer Review Reform Hypothesis-Testing
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0479.html

    A Note of Caution About "Reforming the System"
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1169.html

    Self-Selected Vetting vs. Peer Review: Supplement or Substitute?
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2340.html

    Harnad, S. (1998) The invisible hand of peer review. Nature
    [online] (5 Nov. 1998)
    http://helix.nature.com/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html
    Longer version in Exploit Interactive 5 (2000):
    http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review/

See especially the (null) results of the Cochrane study:
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7383/241/a?2003

>  The Alternative Models that come to mind are:
>
> Open Peer Review

What does this mean? Non-anonymous refereeing? (This (trivial) variable
has been probed endlessly, with no decisive outcome. Not clear whether
junior referees would dare criticize senior authors frankly if they knew
their identity would be revealed.) Anonymyzing authors? (Also trivial,
but here the evidence is still more negative: It looks as if
author-anonymity blunts the instrument, depriving referees of
track-record data, and anonymity often cannot be ensured at all for
prominent researchers, obvious from the references they cite, thereby
penalizing the less-obvious ones.) Making referee reports
public? (Hardly tested, and not something that rejected authors will be too
happy about.) Self-selected or author-selected reviewers? (Is that peer
review at all? And who will bother to revise in response?)

> Formal Peer Review with Subsequent Commentary

This has been successfully implemented by a number of journals, but
it certainly is not a *substitute* for peer peer review, merely a
*supplement* to it. Here are a couple of such journals:

    http://www.bbsonline.org/
    http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/

Plus some background papers about them:

    BBS Editorial 1978
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Kata/bbs.editorial.html

    Harnad, S. (1979) Creative disagreement. The Sciences 19: 18 - 20.
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Kata/creative.disagreement.htm

> Commentary Only (No Prior Formal  Peer Review)

This is no kind of peer review. For samples, go to any chat group on
Usenet or elsewhere:

    http://www.google.ca/advanced_group_search?hl=en

    Harnad, S. (1987) Skywriting
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/skywriting.html

> Pre and/or Post Commentary

What does this mean? (In BBS, above, a journal that provides classical
peer review followed by open peer commentary on the accepted articles,
accepted final drafts], a "precommentary" is a commentary circulated 
to
commentators together with the [refereed, revised, accepted final draft
of the] article; commentators can then comment on both the article and
the precommentary, and then the author can reply; the precommentators
can also reply, in their postcommentary.)

Or by "precommentary" do you mean commentary on unrefereed
preprints? (There exists some of that too, but the best of it appears
in real articles, not self-selected, ad-lib chat.) But then what would
"postcommentary" be? (Just regular commentary?)

> Citation-based Peer Review

What on earth does that mean? Deciding what an article is worth on the
basis of how much it has been cited? That comes rather late in the day,
and hardly qualifies as peer review! (There seems to be a great deal of
willy-nilly mixing of apples, oranges and orangutans here!)

> Reader-based Peer Review

What is this? Self-selected ad-lib comments again? Or simply votes? And
is this meant as a *supplement* to peer review? (If so, fine, it already
exists, in the form of post-hoc published reviews and citations.) Or is
it meant as a *substitute*? (Bad idea. Another orangutan.) Don't confuse
prepublication dynamic feedback and revision -- answerable to an editor
and a journal having an established track-record and quality level --
with postpublication reviews and references.

> Computer-Assisted Peer Review

Almost all the major journals now have this. Papers are circulated to
referees by email, or just by pointing to a (hidden) URL. Referees
are selected with the help of increasingly sophisticated electronic
tools (analyses, databases). This is not an alternative to peer review,
it is a quite natural PostGutenberg *enhancement* of it (and already
becoming rather old hat!)

    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/Peer-Review/

    Harnad, S. (1996) Implementing Peer Review on the
    Net: Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic
    Journals. In: Peek, R. & Newby, G. (Eds.) Scholarly Publishing:
    The Electronic Frontier. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Pp 103-108.
    http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/16/92/index.html

> Collaborative Filtering

What does this mean? We make a club, and share votes on what's worth
reading? Caveat emptor!

Peer review is meant to relieve the researcher/user (and promotion
committee!) of the burden of having to check for himself whether every
raw text with a promising title of keywords is worth the time to read
and try to build upon. That is the essential function that the 20,000 peer
reviewed journals perform for the research community. Alternatives first
have to be tested to see whether they create a viable, usable research
literature of at least the same quality as the one we have now. Until
alternatives are shown to be viable, let us not deprive researchers of
the filtered literature they have now, such as it is, on a kiss and a
promise. Let us leave editors and their designated referees to be the
only ones who have to contend with the raw, unfiltered manuscripts
until/unless we test and confirm a better way. (And let's not even imagine
that they can be replaced by a gallup poll of ad-lib, self-appointed
vettors.)

> Others?

There are many other "alternatives," equally speculative, equally 
innocent
of any supporting empirical data on their viability and scalability.

> and, of course
>
> No Peer Review (Yes, No Review to Me can be reviewed  as an Alternative).

If you want an idea of how the literature would look with no peer
review, sample the raw submissions to the 20,000 journals. (And even
that would probably too optimistic an outcome, because those papers are
still all written under the "invisible hand" of peer review -- i.e.,
with the knowledge that they will be answerable to the editor and
peer-reviewers. For what raw manuscripts would look like if 
"publication"
were merely anything-goes self-posting on the web, all bets are off. No
one has the faintest idea, but I'd again suggest having a look at
the Usenet chat groups, above, for a fair harbinger.)

>    I am *particularly* interested in any current research or
>    implementations that are Computer-Assisted such as
>
>     A SOFTWARE PROGRAM TO AID IN PEER REVIEW
>          [ http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/arev.htm ]

There are now countless such software programs to help implement peer
review more efficiently, equitably, cheaply and quickly online. But they
are not "alternatives" to peer review -- and not news!

Stevan Harnad

NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at
the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 
02):

    http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html
                            or
    http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html

Discussion can be posted to: september98-forum AT amsci-forum.amsci.org 

See also the Budapest Open Access Initiative:
    http://www.soros.org/openaccess

the BOAI Forum:
    http://www.eprints.org/boaiforum.php/

the Free Online Scholarship Movement:
    http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm

the OAI site:
    http://www.openarchives.org

and the free OAI institutional archiving software site:
    http://www.eprints.org/



[BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship

From: "Gerry Mckiernan" <gerrymck AT iastate.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:24:52 -0500


Threading:      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
             Re: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship from radu AT monicsoft.net
             Re: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship from Bernard.Lang AT inria.fr

                  Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship

For a forthcoming presentation [and, of course, the  obligatory associated Web 
registry and article {:-)],  I am greatly interested in the key 
articles/report/documents about  Alternative Peer Review for Scholarship, as 
well as examples of exemplar (Web-based) publishing initiatives  that have 
implemented one or more of these alternatives.

 The Alternative Models that come to mind are: 

Open Peer Review
Formal Peer Review with Subsequent Commentary
Commentary Only (No Prior Formal  Peer Review)
Pre and/or Post Commentary 
Citation-based Peer Review
Reader-based Peer Review
Computer-Assisted Peer Review
Collaborative Filtering 
Others?

and, of course

No Peer Review (Yes, No Review to Me can be reviewed  as an Alternative).

   I am *particularly* interested in any current research or implementations 
that are Computer-Assisted such as 
   
    A SOFTWARE PROGRAM TO AID IN PEER REVIEW
By Alvar Loria (1)  Gladys Faba (2) for the ARTEMISA Selection Committee 
(1)Instituto Nacional de Nutrición Salvador Zubiran, 14000 Mexico City, Mexico 
(2)Centro Nacional de Informacion y Documentacion en Salud, Mexico City, Mexico 


         [ http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/arev.htm ]

  As Always Any and All contributions, suggestions, recommendations, comments, 
DNA samples, etc. etc. etc. are Most Welcome.

/Gerry

Gerry McKiernan
Alternative Librarian 
Iowa State University 
Ames IA 50011

gerrymck AT iastate.edu 

        "The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Invent It!"
                                                  Alan Kay  




[BOAI] Herbert Van de Sompel Receives Kilgour Award for Research in Library and IT

From: "Gerry Mckiernan" <gerrymck AT iastate.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:33:27 -0500


For Immediate Release, April 2003
For more information Contact:
Mary Taylor, 312-280-4267
mtaylor AT ala.org 

2003 LITA Frederick G. Kilgour Award winner announced

Dr. Herbert Van de Sompel of the Los Alamos National Laboratories is
the winner of the Frederick G. Kilgour Award for Research in Library and
Information Technology for 2003. OCLC Online Computer Library Center,
Inc., and the Library and Information Technology Association (LITA), a
division of the American Library Association, sponsor the award.

The award was established to honor the achievements of Frederick G.
Kilgour, the founder of OCLC and a seminal figure in library automation.
The award is given to a person who has amassed a significant body of
"real world" research in the field of library and information 
technology
that has had an impact in the way in which information is published,
stored, retrieved, disseminated or managed. It consists of $2,000, an
expense-paid trip to the ALA Annual Conference, and a citation of
merit.

"The Kilgour Award Committee was delighted to acknowledge the
significant work of Dr. Van de Sompel, whose research has contributed
significantly to not one, but two major current developments in our
field:  linking technologies and metadata harvesting." said Larry Woods,
chair of the award committee. 

Based on the research for his PhD, Herbert and his colleague Patrick
Hochstenbach created SFX, a system that uses information passed from one
information system to create locally appropriate related web links to
other systems.  The SFX system now is in use in hundreds of libraries
worldwide.  Parallel products have been or are now being developed by
various companies, universities, and other players in the library
information technology environment, all based on the insights and
architecture developed for SFX.

A key element of the SFX linking architecture is the OpenURL, a method
for passing bibliographic information from one information system to
another encoded in a URL.  The OpenURL is now being standardized by NISO
(an effort in which Herbert is heavily involved), and shows promise of
becoming a key tool in the interoperation of distributed digital library
systems.  As a matter of fact, it has the potential to change the nature
of links on the Web in general.

With Carl Lagoze, Herbert led an international effort to devise a
protocol by which systems holding descriptive metadata could make that
metadata available for "harvesting" and re-use by other information
systems.  Originally developed to support the building of union catalogs
of metadata derived from distributed e-print archives, the protocol has
been generalized through work in the larger digital library world as the
Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting.  

Dr. Van de Sompel received a Masters degree in Mathematics in 1979, and
a Masters degree in Computer Science in 1981 and a Ph.D. in
Communication Science in 2000 all from Ghent University, Belgium.  He is
now employed at the Research Library of the Los Alamos National
Laboratories in New Mexico as Team Leader, Digital Library Research and
Prototyping Group.

The award will be presented at the LITA President's Program on Monday,
June 23, 2003 at the ALA Annual Conference in Toronto.






Re: [BOAI] Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 20:45:24 +0100 (BST)


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output from lqthede AT apk.net
      • This Message

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Linda Thede wrote:

> Could someone please tell me what the "ECS" stands for in the
> "ECS Research Self Archiving Policy?"

Electronics and Computer Science. (That just happens to be the
department at Southampton University where the draft policy was
formulated, but it is meant to be usable by any department, at any
university.)

Stevan Harnad


Re: [BOAI] Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output

From: Linda Thede <lqthede AT apk.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:05:52 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

Could someone please tell me what the "ECS" stands for in the
"ECS Research Self Archiving Policy?"

Thanks.

--
Linda Q. Thede
435-4 Chandler Drive
Aurora, OH 44202
lqthede AT apk.net
330-562-3281




[BOAI] Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:13:20 +0100 (BST)


Threading:      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output from lqthede AT apk.net

I hope the following exchange will be helpful to those universities
that are currently drafting and implementing institutional/departmental
self-archiving policies: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lac/archpol.html
It concerns the degree to which the metadata of deposits are checked
before they appear publicly in the eprint archive.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, [identity deleted] wrote:

> Entering data on a particular day [does] not result in that data 
> becoming immediately available. There appears to be a serious problem 
> with the data processing.
> 
> According to my "user area homepage", I have three items pending 
- one 
> from 13th March and 2 from 28th March! Why is it necessary for 4 or more 
> weeks to elapse before entries that I make can be added to the database? 
> This *is* a *software* problem. If the reason is that I have not 
> completed the entry properly, that is still a *software* problem because 
> I don't know what I haven't done correctly - there are no error messages.

This is most definitely *not* a software problem but a human factor
problem! The delay in the appearance of your data is 100% a function of
the fact that the vetting of the deposits is not being done promptly --
by a designated human being.

I know this for a fact. I have been performing, myself, that vetting
function for CogPrints -- a public central archive rather than
a local departmentla/institutional archive -- for 6 years now, as
the designated vettor. As soon as a paper is deposited, it is in the
submission buffer. I, as vettor, can immediately review the metadata,
and then OK the deposit, within 1 minute, if I am at the helm. With an
average of 5 deposits per week, this has been no problem. (If the load
ever gets bigger, I can recruit additional designated vettors, but the
OAI and distributed institutional archiving have evolved since the
founding of CogPrints, and that is likely to distribute the load more
sensibly than central archiving, once self-archiving picks up
momentum, with each research self-archiving in his own departmental
archive.)

The (human) resources for either (1) prompt, careful, group-based vetting
of the metadata by designated vettors in each research group, or (2) no
vetting of the metadata and automatic acceptance of the deposits
*must* be part of any departmental self-archiving policy. Without it,
discouraging delays and misunderstandings of the kind you describe
are inevitable. But they have nothing whatsoever to do with either the
software or the principle (and benefits) of departmental self-archiving
of all refereed research output.

Just as the deposit of a single paper is only the matter of a few
keystrokes and a few minutes of time (meaning that the self-archiving of
*all* the research output [including the retrospective legacy output]
of even the most prolific of departmental researchers represents no more
than a few man-hours -- a tiny investment for a huge return, especially
with the help of the "cloning" feature that automatically repeats all
metadata that are common to all or many papers, making redundant re-entry
unnecessary), so the vetting of each single paper is a matter of still
fewer keystrokes and minutes of time. All that is needed is a designated
vettor available to reliably vet that day's deposits -- plus a one-time,
start-up corps of vettors who will process the legacy data.

The calculation of the number of man-hours required, both for any
department's legacy data and for the ongoing future daily research output
per group can easily be done, and it will be found to be ludicrously
small, especially for the size of the benefits it will confer on us all:
http://www.neci.nec.com/~lawrence/papers/online-nature01/

But that calculation must be done, as an essential part of any
departmental self-archiving policy. And a decision has to be made as
to whether the department or institution will (1) resource rigorous
vetting per group, or they prefer to (2) have deposits immediately appear
automatically.

(Option (2) is not a great risk, as the Eprints software itself makes
sure that certain obligatory fields are filled, the depositor himself
can review his own data, and if/when later metadata errors are discovered, the
depositor can correct them. The vetting capability we provided with the
Eprints software was originally modelled on that of the Physics ArXiv,
which receives 3500 deposits per month, from all over the world, in
one central archive in which no individual or institutional interests
are vested. But any local departmental archive -- once the legacy data
are in there -- will have monthly deposit frequencies equal to that
department's monthly output in research papers. I think one vettor per
research group could easily set aside the few minutes per day that it
would take to keep up with checking the metadata for his group's daily
deposits [option (1)], but if that resource is not available I suggest
having the deposit accepted automatically [option (2)] as a far preferable
(and not very risky) alternative to having it sit for a month in a
submission buffer with no designated vettor to check and accept it.)

To repeat, this is a departmental archive policy matter, not an archive
software matter. It is regrettable that in this case the practise seems
to have been allowed to precede thinking the policy through and choosing
between (1) or (2), thereby creating needless misunderstandings about
the software and the principle, but this can easily be remedied now,
and all researchers alerted. Such are the advantages of implementing
a research archive at departmental scale -- and of the small (indeed
trivial) nature of the policy problem in question.

Stevan Harnad


[BOAI] Scholar-based Innovations in Publishing. Part I

From: "Gerry Mckiernan" <gerrymck AT iastate.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:24:40 -0500


                  Scholar-based Innovations in Publishing.  
               Part I: Individual and Institutional Initiatives

    I am proud to announce the publication of the first of a three-part series 
on "Scholar-based Innovations in Publishing" in _Library Hi Tech 
News_: 

Gerry McKiernan (2003) "Scholar-based Innovations in Publishing. Part I: 
Individual and Institutional Initiatives," _Library Hi Tech News_ Vol. 20 
No. 2 (March), pp. 19-26 

    Among the initiatives profiled in this first part are:
 
*Individual*
arXiv.org  http://xxx.arXiv.cornell.edu )
CogPrints (http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/) [DOWN?]
RePEc (Research Papers in Economics) (http://repec.org/ ) 

*Institutional*

eScholarship Repository (University of California)
   (http://repositories.cdlib.org/escholarship/)

Glasgow ePrints Service (http://eprints.lib.gla.ac.uk/)

Knowledge Bank (Ohio State University)
  ( http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/Lib_Info/scholarcom/KBproposal.html )

   Part II in the series is devoted to Library and Professional initiatives and 

scheduled to be published in the next issue of LHTN (20(3). The manuscript for 
Part III was submitted earlier today and is scheduled for publication in LHTN 
20(5).

   Part I is also now available electronically  for subscribers to LHTN via 
Emerald:

  ( http://www.emeraldinsight.com/vl=1/cl=3/nw=1/rpsv/lhtn.htm )

   Enjoy!

/Gerry 

Gerry McKiernan
Associate Professor 
and 
Science and Technology Librarian and Bibliographer
Iowa State University 
Ames IA 50011

            "The Best Way To Predict the Future is to Invent It"
                                                              Alan Kay




[BOAI] Metalist of open access archives (fwd)

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 22:03:51 +0100 (BST)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:29:27 +0100
From: Steve Hitchcock <sh94r AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: SEPTEMBER98-FORUM AT LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Metalist of open access archives

    Core metalist of open access eprint archives 
    http://opcit.eprints.org/archive-core-metalist.html

    Available soon:
    Metalist of open access eprint archives: the genesis
    of institutional archives and independent services
    http://opcit.eprints.org/archive-metalist.html

    "This is not a list of individual open access archives of full-text
    research papers, but instead lists and comments on other lists of
    individual archives. This list and its categorisation gives a broad
    overview of the structure, size and progress of full-text open access
    eprint archives.

    "This list will be maintained and updated as far as is possible,
    and is intended to assist further quantitative research on the open
    access eprint phenomenon for those who want to measure the growth
    and quality of open access eprint archives."

Steve Hitchcock, Southampton University
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Note added by moderator:

Data on the numbers and growth of eprint archives of various kinds are
available in figures 15-25 of the powerpoint series of 37 in:

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm


[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .