Begin forwarded message: > From: Betsy Coles <bcoles at LIBRARY.CALTECH.EDU> > Date: February 17, 2012 5:48:42 PM EST > To: JISC-REPOSITORIES at JISCMAIL.AC.UK > Subject: Re: [EP-tech] Re: Google Scholar discoverability of repository > content > > I'm the technical manager for the main IR at Caltech, CaltechAUTHORS > (http://authors.library.caltech.edu), currently running EPrints 3.1.3. > > Tim's conjecture 1) below seems to account almost exactly for the result > the article authors found: 87.7% of the 25,072 eprints in CaltechAUTHORS > have OA documents attached; the remainder have only documents that are > either restricted to campus or to repository staff. I don't think there are > very > many cases of Tim's conjecture 2), since we have concentrated on adding > current content. > > I haven't read the article in question (we don't subscribe), but the > percentage > of open access eprints is almost exactly the same as the authors' report of GS > indexed items in Table 2. I haven't tested specifically, but it's tempting to > conclude that GS is indexing 100% of our open access content. > > Betsy Coles > Caltech Library IT Group > bcoles at caltech.edu > > -----Original Message----- > From: eprints-tech-bounces at ecs.soton.ac.uk [mailto:eprints-tech-bounces at > ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Tim Brody > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:33 AM > To: eprints-tech at ecs.soton.ac.uk > Cc: JISC-REPOSITORIES at JISCMAIL.AC.UK > Subject: [EP-tech] Re: Google Scholar discoverability of repository content > > Hi All, > > Here is some specific advice for existing repository administrators from > Google Scholar: > http://roar.eprints.org/help/google_scholar.html > > As far as I'm aware there isn't anyone running EPrints 2 now, so > EPrints-based repositories are already (and for a long) the "best in class" > for Google Scholar. > > > Right, this paper ... > > Table 1 is irrelevant and misleading. Scholar links first to the publisher > and, only if there is no publisher link, directly to the IR version. That's a > policy decision on the part of Scholar and nothing to do with IRs. > > Table 2 gives us some useful data. The headline rate for EPrints is 88% > (based on CalTech). Unfortunately the authors haven't provided an analysis of > what happened to the missing records. I've done a quick random sample of > CalTech and I suspect the missing records will consist > of: > 1) Non-OA/non-full-text records (I'm sure a query to the CalTech repository > admin could supply the data). > 2) A percentage of PDFs that Scholar won't be able to parse. CalTech contains > some old (1950s), scanned PDFs from Journals. Where the article isn't at the > top of the page Scholar will struggle to parse the title/authors/abstract and > therefore won't be able to match it to their records e.g. > http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5815/ > > > The remainder of the paper describes the authors' process of fixing their own > IR (based on CONTENTdm). > > > The authors then wrongly conclude: > > "Despite GS?s endorsement of three software packages, the surveys conducted > for this paper demonstrates that software is not a deciding factor for > indexing ratio in GS. Each of the three recommended software packages showed > good indexing ratios for some repositories and poor ratios for others." > > The authors looked at one instance of EPrints and, despite being a relatively > old version, found 88% of its records indexed in GS. > > It is unfortunate that this paper has suggested that IR software in general > is poorly indexed in GS. On the contrary, some badly implemented IR software > is poorly indexed in GS. > > > After all that is said, the most critical factor to IR visibility is having > (BOAI definition) open access content. Hiding content behind search forms, > click-throughs and other things that emphasise the IR at the expense of the > content will hurt your visibility. > > Lastly, Google will index your metadata-only records while Google Scholar is > looking for full-texts. Your GS/Google ratio will approximate how many of > your records have an attached open access PDF (.doc etc). > > > Sincerely, > Tim Brody > (EPrints Developer) > > On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 11:31 +0000, Stevan Harnad wrote: >> Can we enhance the google-scholar discoverability of EPrints (and >> DSpace) repositories? >> >> http://linksource.ebsco.com/linking.aspx?sid=google&auinit=K&aulast=Ar >> litsch&atitle=Invisible+Institutional+Repositories:+Addressing+the+Low >> +Indexing+Ratios+of+IRs+in+Google+Scholar&title=Library+Hi+Tech&volume >> =30&issue=1&date=2012&spage=4&issn=0737-8831 >> >> Kenning Arlitsch, Patrick Shawn OBrien, (2012) "Invisible >> Institutional >> Repositories: Addressing the Low Indexing Ratios of IRs in Google >> Scholar", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 30 Iss: 1 >> >> Purpose - Google Scholar has difficulty indexing the contents of >> institutional repositories, and the authors hypothesize the reason is >> that most repositories use Dublin Core, which cannot express >> bibliographic citation information adequately for academic papers. >> Google Scholar makes specific recommendations for repositories, >> including the use of publishing industry metadata schemas over Dublin >> Core. This paper tests a theory that transforming metadata schemas in >> institutional repositories will lead to increased indexing by Google >> Scholar. >> >> Design/methodology/approach - The authors conducted two surveys of >> institutional and disciplinary repositories across the United States, >> using different methodologies. They also conducted three pilot >> projects that transformed the metadata of a subset of papers from >> USpace, the University of Utah's institutional repository, and >> examined the results of Google Scholar's explicit harvests. >> >> Findings - Repositories that use GS recommended metadata schemas and >> express them in HTML meta tags experienced significantly higher >> indexing ratios. The ease with which search engine crawlers can >> navigate a repository also seems to affect indexing ratio. The second >> and third metadata transformation pilot projects at Utah were >> successful, ultimately achieving an indexing ratio of greater than 90%. >> Research limitations/implications - The second survey was limited to >> forty titles from each of seven repositories, for a total of 280 titles. >> A larger survey that covers more repositories may be useful. >> >> Practical implications - Institutional repositories are achieving >> significant mass, and the rate of author citations from those >> repositories may affect university rankings. Lack of visibility in >> Google Scholar, however, will limit the ability of IRs to play a more >> significant role in those citation rates. >> Originality/value - Little or no research has been published about >> improving the indexing ratio of institutional repositories in Google >> Scholar. The authors believe that they are the first to address the >> possibility of transforming IR metadata to improve indexing ratios in >> Google Scholar. >> *** Options: >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/eprints-tech >> *** Archive: http://www.eprints.org/tech.php/ >> *** EPrints community wiki: http://wiki.eprints.org/ > > > *** Options: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/eprints-tech > *** Archive: http://www.eprints.org/tech.php/ > *** EPrints community wiki: http://wiki.eprints.org/
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120217/085ca8a5/attachment.html
