Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
community would not have been successful without the commitment of so many of you who have contributed in so many ways. I am proud of the community we have created, and I invite you to continue your involvement and support in this effort. The staff at SSRN are all staying (including Gregg Gordon, CEO and myself), the Rochester office is still in place, it will still be free to upload and download papers, and we remain committed to “Tomorrow’s Research Today”. I look forward to and am committed to a successful transition and to another great 25 years for the SSRN community that rivals the first. Michael C. Jensen Founder & Chairman, SSRN Search <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://papers.ssrn.com/> the SSRN eLibrary <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://papers.ssrn.com/> | Browse <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/DisplayJournalBrowse.cfm> SSRN <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/DisplayJournalBrowse.cfm>| Top <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/topten/topTenPapers.cfm> Papers <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=2338421=4024=15740=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/topten/topTenPapers.cfm> ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- -- -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- Ross Mounce, PhD Software Sustainability Institute Fellow 2016 Dept. of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge www.rossmounce.co.uk <http://rossmounce.co.uk/> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- ** Isidro F. Aguillo Dr. Honoris Causa Universitas Indonesia Dr. Honoris Causa National Research Nuclear University Moscow Editor Rankings Web Cybermetrics Lab - Scimago Group, IPP-CSIC Madrid. SPAIN isidro.agui...@csic.es ORCID -0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings webometrics.info *** --- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: [GOAL] Re : Re: SSRN Sellout to Elsevier
unity of authors, researchers and institutions > that has made this all possible. I consider it one of my great > accomplishments in life. The community would not have been > successful without the commitment of so many of you who have > contributed in so many ways. I am proud of the community we have > created, and I invite you to continue your involvement and support > in this effort. > > > The staff at SSRN are all staying (including Gregg Gordon, CEO and > myself), the Rochester office is still in place, it will still be > free to upload and download papers, and we remain committed to > “Tomorrow’s Research Today”. I look forward to and am committed to > a successful transition and to another great 25 years for the SSRN > community that rivals the first. > > > Michael C. Jensen > > Founder & Chairman, SSRN > > > > Search > the SSRN eLibrary | Browse > SSRN | Top > Papers > ___ > > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab (3E14). IPP - CSIC Albasanz, 26-28. 28037 Madrid. Spain isidro.aguillo @ csic.es www. webometrics.info ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: [GOAL] Request Your Help for an open access study on non-English-language journals
You can use our list of Portals of journals with dozens of OJS implementations in Latin America and other regions plus other in-house developments: http://repositories.webometrics.info/en/top_portals On 11/03/2016 16:29, Pierre Mounier wrote: Revues.org in France : http://www.revues.org Hrcak in Croatia : http://hrcak.srce.hr/ AJOL in Africa : http://www.ajol.info/ Best, -- Pierre Mounier Directeur adjoint au développement international - OpenEdition Associate Director for international development - OpenEdition EHESS 190-198 avenue de France 75244 Paris cedex 13 Bureau/Office 447 Mob. +33 (0)6 61 98 31 86 Twitter : @piotrr70 orcid.org/-0003-0691-6063 <http://orcid.org/-0003-0691-6063> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca <mailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca>> wrote: Do not forget Redalyc in Mexico. Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal Le vendredi 11 mars 2016 à 12:04 +0200, Cenyu Shen a écrit : Dear recipient, We have started a study to look at a subset of Open Access scholarly journal publishing, which we feel has been overlooked in much of the published research, namely OA journals published in other languages than English. We include both newly started electronic only OA journals, as well as older print journals that have started to make the e-version free. The vast majority of these probably don?t charge authors. There are a number of reasons there have been few results about the overall extent of such publishing etc. One is that many leading researchers come from countries where English is the main language, and many studies have from the start been restricted to such only journals publishing in English, in order to facilitate the gathering of data. Another is that non-English journals are likely to be underrepresented in all the available indexes, including the DOAJ. We have so far indentified two easy ways to find information about such journals. The first is using DOAJ and its search facilities. The second one is using the OA journal portals we are aware of, such as Scielo, J-stage, doiSerbia etc. In addition to this there are many countries, which don?t have such portals and we would like also to get information from those. For this purpose we try to contact experts who we believe have good knowledge of the situation in their countries and could provide us links to list of all reputable scholarly journals in their country, lists of OA journals etc. Countries which interest us in particular are: Canada, Most European countries (except the UK) and including Russia, Francophone countries in Africa, Middle East and Asian Countries. We will use three ways to contact volunteers who can help us: Contact with the management of DOAJ and its voluntary editorial staff An email to The Global Open Access List (GOAL) Direct e-mail to people we know If you feel you are in a position to provide us information, please contact us by e-mail Cenyu Shen, Ph.D. Student Principal researcher cenyu.s...@hanken.fi <mailto:cenyu.s...@hanken.fi> Bo-Christer Björk, Professor bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi <mailto:bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> Mikael Laakso, Assistant Professor mikael.laa...@hanken.fi <mailto:mikael.laa...@hanken.fi> Information Systems Science Dept. of Management and Organisation Hanken School of Economics P.O. Box 479, 00101 Helsinki, Finland ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- ************** Isidro F. Aguillo Dr. Honoris Causa Universitas Indonesia Dr. Honoris Causa National Research Nuclear University Moscow Editor Rankings Web Cybermetrics Lab - Scimago Group, IPP-CSIC Madrid. SPAIN isidro.agui...@csic.es ORCID -0001-8927-4873 ResearcherID: A-7280-2008 Scholar Citations SaCSbeoJ Twitter @isidroaguillo Rankings webometrics.info *** --- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: Ranking of repositories
Dear colleagues, In my country sometimes we said: the best is enemy of the good and certainly there are far better tools for analyzing empirically the OAI but at this moment the key objective is IMPACT and according to my personal experience several universities are promoting their institutional repositories for improving their position in the Rankings. Perhaps the problem is not with the Rankings themselves, but with authorities not applying quality criteria in the evaluation of such classifications. Only in this way can be explained that a lot of people believe that the unethical Times Higher Education Ranking is very prestigious. Best regards, El 03/08/2011 17:52, Jean-Claude Guédon escribió: Personally, I regret these constant efforts to create rankings leading to the identification of excellence. They completely distort the quality issues which, IMHO, are far more important. Would it not be much better to create evaluation thresholds corresponding to quality levels. This would encourage lower-level repositories to try moving up a category, and then perhaps two? Some may object that category classifications are nothing more than rough, crude ranking. This is not false, but there is a distinction to be observed, however: quality thresholds do not put competition at the center of everything, and it does not rely on competition to identify quality. Some may think that competition is a good way to create quality, but this is not the case. Just to give an example: the US health system is largely dominated by competitive rankings of all kinds. This leads to two opposite results: the US has many of the best health centers in the world and a great many Nobel prizes in medicine; yet, the US ranks about 35th in the world for life expectancy, which is shockingly low. If one were to choose between having the medical champions of the world, versus having a population with a better general health, one would tend to prefer the latter. At least that would be my choice. In other words, fighting for excellence as the over-arching principle of quality creation leads to the concentration of quality at the very top, and it often leads to the neglect of overall quality. I believe science needs quality everywhere, and not just at the top. A bit of competition is also needed, but only at the very top, to stimulate the very best to go one step further. Competition everywhere does not work because those that cannot hope to come even close to the very best, the gold medals, simply give up. Incidentally, OA corresponds to a massive vote in favor of quality, as the many discussions about quality control and peer review that are appearing in its wake demonstrate. Excellence is all right if it is limited to the very top of science, where the paradigm shifts occur. But most of science is not about paradigm shifting, far from it. Let us value excellence, but let us keep it also in its proper place. Meanwhile, let us grow quality all over and Open Access is a powerful tool to that end. My two cents' worth. Jean-Claude Guédon Le mercredi 03 août 2011 ??10:04 -0400, Peter Suber a écrit : [Forwarding from Isidro F. Aguillo, via the AmSci OA Forum. ??--Peter Suber.] The second edition of the 2011 Ranking Web of Repositories has been published at the end of July. ??It is available from the Webometrics portal: http://repositories.webometrics.info/ The number of repositories is growing fast, especially in academic institutions from developing countries. As in previous editions the subject repositories still appear in the top positions, with large institutional ones following them. There are no relevant changes in this edition, but the editors are making a plea to the Open Access community regarding a few aspects related to intellectual property issues. The papers and other documents deposited in institutional repositories are probably the main asset of those institutions. As important as giving free access to others is the proper recognition of the authorship of the scientific documents. Unfortunately a few institutions are hosting their repositories in websites outside the main webdomain of its organization and many repositories are recommending to use systems like handle and others purl-like URLs for citing (linking) the deposited items. This means that moral rights regarding institutional authorship are ignored, relevant information about authors
Ranking of repositories
The second edition of the 2011 Ranking Web of Repositories has been published at the end of July.  It is available from the Webometrics portal: http://repositories.webometrics.info/ The number of repositories is growing fast, especially in academic institutions from developing countries. As in previous editions the subject repositories still appear in the top positions, with large institutional ones following them. There are no relevant changes in this edition, but the editors are making a plea to the Open Access community regarding a few aspects related to intellectual property issues. The papers and other documents deposited in institutional repositories are probably the main asset of those institutions. As important as giving free access to others is the proper recognition of the authorship of the scientific documents. Unfortunately a few institutions are hosting their repositories in websites outside the main webdomain of its organization and many repositories are recommending to use systems like handle and others purl-like URLs for citing (linking) the deposited items. This means that moral rights regarding institutional authorship are ignored, relevant information about authors is missed and the semantic possibilities of the web address are not explored. Nowadays it is already common to add the URL address of the full text document in the bibliographic references of the published papers. Logically the link to the full text in the institutional repository can be used for that purpose, but researchers are facing options that ignore their institutional affiliation, with strange meaningless codes, prone to typos or other mistakes and pointing to metadata pages not to the full text documents. Obviously for authors it could be more profitable to host the papers in their personal pages instead doing it in institutional repositories whose naming policies have relevant copyright issues. Our position is that end-users should be taken into account, that web addresses are going to place in important role in citing behavior, that citations are the key tool for evaluation of authors, that institutions are investing large amounts of money in their repositories in exchange of prestige and impact and that providing permanent address is the duty of the institution, nor responsibility of external third-parties. Comments are welcomed  -- === Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD The Cybermetrics Lab IPP-CCHS-CSIC Albasanz, 26-28 (3C1) 28037 Madrid. Spain isidro.aguillo @ cchs.csic.es ===
Re: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition
. For the record, I completely agree with you about PDF / HTML / XHTML. If only Microsoft Word (and LaTeX) had decent export facilities that produced good semantic HTML. -- Les Carr -- === Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab (3C1) IPP-CCHS-CSIC Albasanz, 26-28 28037 Madrid. Spain Editor of the Rankings Web ===
Re: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition
HTML is superior to PDF for purposes of access and reuse, I self-archive in HTML rather than PDF whenever I can. For the record, I completely agree with you about PDF / HTML / XHTML. If only Microsoft Word (and LaTeX) had decent export facilities that produced good semantic HTML. Why wait for Microsoft? What has the the open source community be doing on this front? What about OpenOffice? Any good open source NLM DTD conversion tools out there? Why has it taken so long? No answer to that. I am only mirroring the current situation. Leslie (Chan) -- Les Carr -- === Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD Cybermetrics Lab (3C1) IPP-CCHS-CSIC Albasanz, 26-28 28037 Madrid. Spain Editor of the Rankings Web ===
Re: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition
Dear Stevan: A lot of interesting stuff to think about. We are already working on some of those proposals but it is not easy. However perhaps you will like this page we prepared for the University rankings related to UK universities commitment to OA: http://www.webometrics.info/openac.html Thanks for your useful comments, El 08/07/2010 18:34, Stevan Harnad escribió: On 2010-07-08, at 4:43 AM, Isidro F. Aguillo wrote: Dear Hélène: Thank you for your message, but I disagree with your proposal. We are not measuring only contents but contents AND visibility in the web. Dear Isidro, If I may intervene with some comments too, as this discussion has some wider implications: Yes, you are measuring both contents and visibility, but presumably you want the difference between (1) the ranking of the top 800 repositories and (2) the ranking of the top 800 *institutional* repositories to be based on the fact that the latter are institutional repositories whereas the former are all repositories (central, i.e., multi-institutional, as well as institutional). Moreover, if you list redundant repositories (some being the proper subsets of others) in the very same ranking, it seems to me the meaning of the ranking becomes rather vague. Certainly HyperHAL covers the contents of all its participants, but the impact of these contents depends of other factors. Probably researchers prefer to link to the paper in INRIA because of the prestige of this institution, the affiliation of the author or the marketing of their institutional repository. All true, but perhaps the significance and usefulness of the rankings would be greater if you either changed the weight of the factors (volume of full-text content, number of links) or, alternatively, you designed the rankings so the user could select and weight the criteria on which the rankings are displayed. Otherwise your weightings become like the h-index -- an a-priori combination of untested, unvalidated weights that many users may not be satisfied with, or fully informed by... But here is a more important aspect. If I were the president of INRIA I will prefer people using my institutional repository instead CCSD. No problem with the last one, they are makinng a great job and increasing the reach of INRIA, but the papers deposited are a very important (the most important?) asset of INRIA. But how much INRIA papers are linked, downloaded and cited is not necessarily (or even probably) a function of their direct locus! What is important for INRIA (and all institutions) is that as much as possible of their paper output should be OA, simpliciter, so that it can be linked, downloaded, read, applied, used and cited. It is entirely secondary, for INRIA (and all institutions), *where* their papers are OA, compared to the necessary condition *that* they are OA (and hence freely accessible, usaeble, harvestable). Hence (in my view) by far the most important ranking factor for institutional repositories is how much of their full-text institutional paper output is indeed deposited and OA. INRIA would have no reason to be disappointed if the locus from which its content is searched, retrieved and linked is some other, multi-institutional harvester. INRIA still gets the credit and benefits from all the links, downloads and citations of INRIA content! (Having said that, locus of deposit *does* matter, very much, for deposit mandates, Deposit mandates are necessary in order to generate OA content. And, for strategic reasons that are elaborated in my reply to Chris Armbruster, it makes a big practical difference for success in agreeing on the adoption of a mandate that both institutional and funder mandates should require convergent *institutional* deposit, rather than divergent and competing institutional vs. institution-extermal deposit. Here too, your repository rankings would be much more helpful and informative if they gave a greater weight to the relative size of each institutional repository's content and eliminated multi-institutional repositories from the institutional repository rankings -- or at least allowed institutional repositories to be ranked independently on content vs links. I think you are perhaps being misled here by the analogy with your sister rankings http://www.webometrics.info/ RWWU of universities rather than their repositories In university rankings, the links to the university site itself matter a lot. But in repository rankings links matter much less than *how much institutional content is accessible*. For the degree of usage of that content, harvester sites may be more relevant measures, and, after all, downloads and citations, unlike links, carry their credits (to the authors and institutions) with them no matter where the transaction happens to occur... Regarding the other comments we are going to correct those
Re: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition
Dear Hélène: Thank you for your message, but I disagree with your proposal. We are not measuring only contents but contents AND visibility in the web. Certainly HyperHAL covers the contents of all its participants, but the impact of these contents depends of other factors. Probably researchers prefer to link to the paper in INRIA because of the prestige of this institution, the affiliation of the author or the marketing of their institutional repository. But here is a more important aspect. If I were the president of INRIA I will prefer people using my institutional repository instead CCSD. No problem with the last one, they are makinng a great job and increasing the reach of INRIA, but the papers deposited are a very important (the most important?) asset of INRIA. Regarding the other comments we are going to correct those with mistakes but it is very difficult for us to realize that Virginia Tech University is faking its institutional repository with contents authored by external scholars. Best regards, El 07/07/2010 23:03, Hélène.Bosc escribió: Isidro, Thank you for your Ranking Web of World Repositories and for informing us about the best quality repositories! Being French, I am delighted to see HAL so well ranked and I take this opportunity to congratulate Franck Laloe for having set up such a good national repository as well as the CCSD team for continuing to maintain and improve it. Nevertheless, there is a problem in your ranking that I have already had occasion to point out to you in private messages. May I remind you that: Correction for the top 800 ranking: The ranking should either index HyperHAL alone, or index both HAL/INRIA and HAL/SHS, but not all three repositories at the same time: HyperHAL includes both HAL/INRIA and HAL/SHS . Correction for the ranking of institutional repositories: Not only does HyperHAL (#1) include both HAL/INRIA (#3) and HAL/SHS (#5), as noted above, but HyperHAL is a multidisciplinary repository, intended to collect all French research output, across all institutions. Hence it should not be classified and ranked against individual institutional repositories but as a national, central repository. Indeed, even HAL/SHS is multi-institutional in the usual sense of the word: single universities or research institutions. The classification is perhaps being misled by the polysemous use of the word institution. Not to seem to be biassed against my homeland, I would also point out that, among the top 10 of the top 800 institutional repositories, CERN (#2) is to a certain extent hosting multi-institutional output too, and is hence not strictly comparable to true single-institution repositories. In addition, California Institute of Technology Online Archive of California (#9) is misnamed -- it is the Online Archive of California http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ (CDLIB, not CalTech) and as such it too is multi-institutional. And Digital Library and Archives Virginia Tech University (#4) may also be anomalous, as it includes the archives of electronic journals with multi-institutional content. Most of the multi-institutional anomalies in the Top 800 Institutional seem to be among the top 10 -- as one would expect if multiple institutional content is inflating the apparent size of a repository. Beyond the top 10 or so, the repositories look to be mostly true institutional ones. I hope that this will help in improving the next release of your increasingly useful ranking! Best wishes Hélène Bosc - Original Message - From: Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:07 PM Subject: Fwd: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition Begin forwarded message: From: Isidro F. Aguillo isidro.agui...@cchs.csic.es Date: July 6, 2010 11:13:58 AM EDT To: sigmetr...@listserv.utk.edu Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition The second edition of 2010 Ranking Web of Repositories has been published the same day OR2010 started here in Madrid. The ranking is available from the following URL: http://repositories.webometrics.info/ The main novelty is the substantial increase in the number of repositories analyzed (close to 1000). The Top 800 are ranked according to their web presence and visibility. As usual thematic repositories (CiteSeer, RePEc, Arxiv) leads the Ranking, but the French research institutes (CNRS, INRIA, SHS) using HAL are very close. Two issues have changed from previous editions from a methodologicall point of view:, the use of Bing's engine data has been discarded due to irregularities in the figures obtained and MS Excel files has been excluded again. At the end of July the new edition of the Rankings of universities, research centers and hospitals
Ranking Web of World Repositories
The January edition of the Ranking Web of Repositories is just published. http://repositories.webometrics.info/ The number of repositories is growing fast worldwide but still many of them does not have their own domain or subdomain, and for this reason it is not possible to add them in our analysis. Some institutions maintain several databases with completely different URLs which penalize the global visibility they have. We are still unable to add usage/download statics but there are many initiatives already working on standardization of the collecting methods, so we expect that global data could be available soon. Following several requests we now show two global Rankings. One that covers all repositories as was shown in previous editions (Top 300), and a new one that focus only on Institutional Repositories (Top 300 Institutional). There is a minor change regarding the calculation of the number of rich files as in this new edition we are using again other formats than pdf (doc, ppt, ps) to obtain the data. Contrary to the methodology we used to make the other Rankings, the figures for rich files are combined and not treated individually. The French HAL central repository, and its subsets like INRIA, Social Sciences and Humanities (HAL-SHS) or IN2P3, are at the top of the institutional repository list. Important repositories like PubMedCentral, CiteSeerX and Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System, do not use standard suffixes to design their contents (e.g. papers in acrobat format with file names which extension is not .pdf). This is a bad practice as it reduces the visibility of these documents to the search engines. Our policy is not to include collectors or metarepositories, with one exception which is DiVa, the interface that the Uppsala University provides to more than 20 Nordic repositories. Many of these institutions do not have their own systems but link their contents to the DiVa portal. Unfortunately, this means that many of the papers are under different domains and then they do not contribute to the DiVa's rank. -- * Isidro F. Aguillo Cybermetrics Lab CCHS - CSIC Albasanz, 26-28, 3C1. 28037 Madrid. Spain Ph. 91-602 2890. Fax: 91-602 2971 isidro.aguillo @ cchs.csic.es www. webometrics.info *
Re: University ranking
-ACCESS-FORUM Digest - 6 Aug 2008 to 7 Aug 2008 (#2008-151) Hello all, This type of ranking is to me clearly a case of crank ranking What is THAT supposed to mean? Quality? But of What? In fact it means not much of anything in terms of academic reality that should be the basic focus of universities and indicators rerlated to their missions. The accompanying text of the message seems to imply that the changes in positions are related to any kind of improvement of a university., which is clearly NOT the case. Worst still, in terms of interpretation, the text notes that the UNAM climbs up to the position number 51, a relevant change from previous number 59. (we underline) Well... In fact, this changes of 8 positions among a thousand is in all probability (99.99...) due to a random change from year to year given the large variance of the sample. Let us hope those who like constructing indicators wil use their time to find meaningful ones instead of trying to interpret smalll variations in pseudo common-sense indicators (here web hits) which are not really connected to universities' missions ... Have a nice day Yves Gingras -- Isidro F. Aguillo Laboratorio de Cibermetría Cybermetrics Lab CCHS - CSIC Joaquin Costa, 22 28002 Madrid. Spain isidro @ cindoc.csic.es +34-91-5635482 ext 313
New Beta version of the Ranking Web of World Repositories
We have taken into account some of the suggestions regarding the Ranking Web of World Repositories for the new Beta 2 version. We have changed the domain that it is now autonomous from the Universities Ranking one: http://repositories.webometrics.info/ This will allow to be more flexible in the future and to enlarge and diversify the coverage. Now we are ranking the Top 300 instead the first 200 as in the previous edition. New repositories have been added, like PubMedCentral that was missed and others have been deleted because they are not focused on research papers. The most important changes are related to ranking methodology: For the Rich files ranking we are considering only Adobe Acrobat pdf files, as other formats numbers were very low for ranking purposes. For the same reason, only data extracted from Google and Yahoo were considered. Regarding Scholar ranking, it is now build from the mean between the total number of items and those published between 2001 and 2008 to increase the weight of the freshness. Finally we are suggesting the use of Google Analytics as common minimum standards for obtaining usage data, clearly the weakest point of our current approach. Comments are welcomed as usual, -- Isidro F. Aguillo Laboratorio de Cibermetría Cybermetrics Lab CCHS - CSIC Joaquin Costa, 22 28002 Madrid. Spain isidro @ cindoc.csic.es +34-91-5635482 ext 313
Re: New Ranking of Central and Institutional Repositories
20%. If it is necessary to measure size, and it probably is, then I suggest a measure that counts the number of records with a publication date within the last five years. Choose 10 years if you want, but ancient record-keeping does not translate into impact. ACTIVITY It is quite clear from ROAR that deposit activity is a major measure of impact. There are three easy measures to derive. * The number of acquisitions in the last 12 months. Easily discovered from the OAI interface. * The number of acquisitions with a publication date in the last 12 months. Easily discovered from the OAI interface. This measures currency as well as activity. * Some repositories are sporadic, some are continuous, the latter reflecting a deep-seated integration within the university's activity. A simple measure would be to derive a statistic from the traffic (see ROAR), such as * number of days in last 12 months with a deposit event * the Fourier spectrum of the last 12 months deposit events having no component with a period longer than 7 days above 10% (I guess at what is significant and perhaps this can be turned into a score). RICH TEXT This is a reasonable measure, though subject to error. For example we sometimes put a full-text that gives instructions on how to ask for access to the item concerned, or a bio of the creator of an artwork. DOWNLOADS I'd love to promote downloads as a measure of impact, but there is as yet no federated way to access this data. I'm happy to continue this dialogue. Arthur Sale Professor of Computer Science University of Tasmania -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM@LISTSERVER.SIGMAXmailto:A MERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM@LISTSERVER.SIGMAX I.ORG] On Behalf Of Isidro F. Aguillo Sent: Monday, 11 February 2008 6:53 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] New Ranking of Central and Institutional Repositories Dear all: Thanks for your interest in the Ranking of repositories, part of our larger effort for rnaking webpresence of universities and research centers. A few comments to your messages: - Currently the Ranking of repositories is a beta version. We will thank comments, suggestions and criticisms. Information about missed repositories are warmly welcomed. After feedback recieved during the last days we are considering a new edition before the scheduled one in July. - Our rank formula mimic in part PageRank but our inspiration was in fact impact factor. We maintain a ratio 1:1 between visibility (impact) and size (activity) that it is the basis of IF. In order to take into account the diversity of web info we decide to split the size contribution according to additional criteria. - Freshness is a topic we are concerned about not only for repositories but for the rest of the rankings too. We are considering to take it into account in the Scholar contribution giving more weight to recent publications. - There are methodological problems for producing relative indicators: percentage of global output, or institution size normalization. But you know ranking are usually build by GDP (US, Japan, Germany,...) and not GDP per capita (Luxembourg, United Arab Emirates, ...) - Our position as a research group has been previously stated but I am going to summarise again: The rankings are made with the aim of increase the volume of academic information available on the Web, promoting the electronic publication of all the activities of the universities, not only the research related ones. And specially from developing countries institutions. Best regards, Leslie Carr escribió: On 9 Feb 2008, at 21:36, Arthur Sale wrote: It looks as though the algorithm is the same as for university websites. Rank each repository for inward bound hyperlinks (VISIBILITY) Rank every repository for number of pages (SIZE) Rank every repository for number of 'interesting' documents eg .doc. .pdf (RICH FILES) Rank every repository for number of records returned by a Google Scholar search (GOOGLE SCHOLAR) Compute (VISIBILITY x 50%) + (SIZE x 20%) + (RICH FILES x 15%) + (GOOGLE SCHOLAR x 15%) And then rank the repositories on this score. This is a poor measure in general. VISIBILITY (accounts for 50% of score!) is not necessarily useful for repositories, when harvesting in more important than hyperlinks. It will be strongly influenced by staff members linking their publications off a repository search. Both SIZE and RICH FILES measure absolute size and say nothing about currency or activity. Some of the higher placed Australian
Re: New Ranking of Central and Institutional Repositories
Dear all: Thanks for your interest in the Ranking of repositories, part of our larger effort for rnaking webpresence of universities and research centers. A few comments to your messages: - Currently the Ranking of repositories is a beta version. We will thank comments, suggestions and criticisms. Information about missed repositories are warmly welcomed. After feedback recieved during the last days we are considering a new edition before the scheduled one in July. - Our rank formula mimic in part PageRank but our inspiration was in fact impact factor. We maintain a ratio 1:1 between visibility (impact) and size (activity) that it is the basis of IF. In order to take into account the diversity of web info we decide to split the size contribution according to additional criteria. - Freshness is a topic we are concerned about not only for repositories but for the rest of the rankings too. We are considering to take it into account in the Scholar contribution giving more weight to recent publications. - There are methodological problems for producing relative indicators: percentage of global output, or institution size normalization. But you know ranking are usually build by GDP (US, Japan, Germany,...) and not GDP per capita (Luxembourg, United Arab Emirates, ...) - Our position as a research group has been previously stated but I am going to summarise again: The rankings are made with the aim of increase the volume of academic information available on the Web, promoting the electronic publication of all the activities of the universities, not only the research related ones. And specially from developing countries institutions. Best regards, Leslie Carr escribió: On 9 Feb 2008, at 21:36, Arthur Sale wrote: It looks as though the algorithm is the same as for university websites. Rank each repository for inward bound hyperlinks (VISIBILITY) Rank every repository for number of pages (SIZE) Rank every repository for number of 'interesting' documents eg .doc. .pdf (RICH FILES) Rank every repository for number of records returned by a Google Scholar search (GOOGLE SCHOLAR) Compute (VISIBILITY x 50%) + (SIZE x 20%) + (RICH FILES x 15%) + (GOOGLE SCHOLAR x 15%) And then rank the repositories on this score. This is a poor measure in general. VISIBILITY (accounts for 50% of score!) is not necessarily useful for repositories, when harvesting in more important than hyperlinks. It will be strongly influenced by staff members linking their publications off a repository search. Both SIZE and RICH FILES measure absolute size and say nothing about currency or activity. Some of the higher placed Australian universities have simply had old stuff dumped in them, and are relatively inactive in acquiring current material. Activity should be a major factor in metrics for repositories, and this could easily measured by a search limited to a year (eg 2007), or by the way ROAR does it through OAI-PMH harvesting. I believe that the Webometrics (ghastly name!) ranking of repositories uses the same criteria as its ranking of universities ie it is attempting to quantify the impact that the repository has had. This is very different to the size, deposit activity, or even used-ness of the repository and explains why the major contributing factor is VISIBILITY. The main issue for this league table is how much evidence is there in the public web that your active research and scholarly outputs are valued enough by your community of peers that they are linking to them. This will probably seem entirely arbitrary to some people, and entirely obvious to others, depending on how much they see the web as a para-literature. It mimics Google's PageRank valuation of web pages according to how many 'votes' (links/quasi-citations) they get from other pages from independent sources. It is not possible to tell with any accuracy whether a University Website is a good website simply by looking at the University's place in the Webometrics Ranking of Universities. The website is simply a channel which delivers visibility-impact for the University (or not). Similarly for the repository. -- Les Carr -- Isidro F. Aguillo Laboratorio de Cibermetría Cybermetrics Lab CCHS - CSIC Joaquin Costa, 22 28002 Madrid. Spain isidro @ cindoc.csic.es +34-91-5635482 ext 313
