Category Archives: oa.metadata

Analysing preprint metadata to understand adoption and impact – ASAPbio

Posted on by

“Preprinting in the life sciences has grown rapidly in recent years but still represents a very small fraction (~3%) of the biomedical literature published each year. One of ASAPbio’s major tasks is to engage the research community about continuing adoption and developing best practices for preprints – but we rely on fairly broad metrics when monitoring preprint adoption, and it would be informative to understand the level of preprint posting within individual communities, whether bounded by institution or research area. 

In 2019, we collaborated with the ScholCommLab to better understand the status of preprint adoption and impact in specific research communities by analysing available preprint metadata. The ScholCommLab is an interdisciplinary team of researchers based in Vancouver and Ottawa, Canada, interested in all aspects of scholarly communication. …”

LD4L

Posted on by

“With support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Linked Data for Production Phase 2 (LD4P2) partners (Cornell University, Harvard University, Stanford University, and the University of Iowa’s School of Library and Information Science), in collaboration with the Library of Congress and the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), are building a pathway for the cataloging community to begin shifting to linked data to describe library resources. LD4P2 builds on the foundational work of Linked Data for Production (LD4P) Phase 1 and Linked Data for Libraries Labs (LD4L Labs). More on LD4P2 Project Background and Goals….”

De l’accord au contrat : le groupement de commandes Elsevier à la loupe – PUNKTOKOMO

Posted on by

From Google’s English: “Making it visible goes hand in hand with facilitating access. Also, one of the new features of the contract concerns the delivery to the CCSD of files of all accepted author manuscripts whose correspondence author is affiliated with a French ESRI institution , for distribution via HAL or via other archives institutional, after 24 months from the date of publication.

The delivery of files, under CC-BY-NC license, will be semi-annual. It will take place before the end of the 12-month embargo period after online publication. As the automation of the deposit must not hamper self-archiving, the contract very clearly reaffirms the possibility for the author to deposit himself – or thanks to an agent other than the publisher – his writings in a open archive, under the conditions made possible by the Law for a digital Republic , with a shorter deadline (6 to 12 months, depending on the area). It was indeed important to remove any ambiguity and to clarify that the conditions for the supply of files provided for by this contract do not replace the researchers’ approach.

Finally, another clause provides for free access to these same accepted authors’ manuscripts, after 12 months after publication, via a specific platform developed by the publisher: a stable and structured URL, integrated into the HAL notices concerned, will point to this external platform, provided that the author has not already submitted his article in HAL….”

De l’accord au contrat : le groupement de commandes Elsevier à la loupe – PUNKTOKOMO

Posted on by

From Google’s English: “Making it visible goes hand in hand with facilitating access. Also, one of the new features of the contract concerns the delivery to the CCSD of files of all accepted author manuscripts whose correspondence author is affiliated with a French ESRI institution , for distribution via HAL or via other archives institutional, after 24 months from the date of publication.

The delivery of files, under CC-BY-NC license, will be semi-annual. It will take place before the end of the 12-month embargo period after online publication. As the automation of the deposit must not hamper self-archiving, the contract very clearly reaffirms the possibility for the author to deposit himself – or thanks to an agent other than the publisher – his writings in a open archive, under the conditions made possible by the Law for a digital Republic , with a shorter deadline (6 to 12 months, depending on the area). It was indeed important to remove any ambiguity and to clarify that the conditions for the supply of files provided for by this contract do not replace the researchers’ approach.

Finally, another clause provides for free access to these same accepted authors’ manuscripts, after 12 months after publication, via a specific platform developed by the publisher: a stable and structured URL, integrated into the HAL notices concerned, will point to this external platform, provided that the author has not already submitted his article in HAL….”

The Need to Simplify Indexing and Data Sharing – The Scholarly Kitchen

Posted on by

“The complexity of indexing and sharing data with repositories and other third parties is a barrier to change for smaller operations. Managing metadata agreements, setting up data feeds, and adding metadata is a time-consuming task, but a necessary cost of doing business. That said, once you realize the time commitment for each exchange or agreement, you may, by nature, become conservative.

The more complexity you take on, the higher the risk and cost. Further, by setting up these technical connections, the thought of someday – eventually- moving platforms or content management system becomes increasingly difficult and expensive….

The following three examples point out the unnecessary complexity of scientific publishing. …

We need to flip the current system of submitting data to instead facilitate third parties’ ability to easily gather the data they need. Instead of trying to simplify current standards and give each journal new work, it is the small group of receivers who should change.

 

The current receivers should fetch the data they need instead of each journal creating and sending data. Economically, it’s a simple choice: Let a handful of indexing and data collectors change their input systems instead of having a whole industry try to agree and then change thousands of systems….”

DPLA cultural artifacts coming to Wikipedia through new collaboration with Wikimedia Foundation

Posted on by

“In an effort to make artifacts from cultural heritage institutions more accessible to all, Digital Public Library of America (DPLA), the national aggregator of digital heritage collections, and the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that operates Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects, are collaborating to incorporate DPLA’s cultural artifacts into Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Funded by a generous grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, this collaboration will expand the availability of artifacts such as books, maps, government documents, photos, and more from U.S. cultural heritage institutions across the web.  …

The collaboration will build off the Wikimedia Foundation’s existing Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons project, a multi-year effort to lay the infrastructure that will make metadata about media files within Wikimedia Commons machine-readable and easily accessible by search online. The project will help unlock collections of images, documents, and other precious cultural artifacts for easy search and reuse both within Wikimedia Foundation websites and broadly across the web….”

Monitoring agreements with open access elements: why article-level metadata are important

Posted on by

Abstract:  Agreements with open access (OA) elements (e.g. agreements with APC discounts, offsetting agreements, read and publish agreements) have been increasing in number in the last few years. With more agreements including some form of OA, consortia and academic institutions need to monitor the number of OA publications, the costs and the value of these agreements. Publishers are therefore required to account for the articles published OA to consortia, academic institutions and research funders. One way publishers can do so is by providing regular reports with article-level metadata. This article uses the Knowledge Exchange (KE) and the Efficiency and Standards for Article Charges (ESAC) initiative recommendations as a check-list to assess what article-level metadata consortia request from publishers and what metadata publishers deliver to consortia. KE countries’ agreements with major publishers were analysed to assess how far consortia and publishers are from requesting and providing article-level metadata. The results from this research can be used as a benchmark to determine how major publishers were performing until early 2019 and prior to Plan S coming into effect in 2021. A recommendation is made that publishers use the article-level metadata check-list as a template to provide the metadata recommended by KE and ESAC.

Monitoring agreements with open access elements: why article-level metadata are important

Posted on by

Abstract:  Agreements with open access (OA) elements (e.g. agreements with APC discounts, offsetting agreements, read and publish agreements) have been increasing in number in the last few years. With more agreements including some form of OA, consortia and academic institutions need to monitor the number of OA publications, the costs and the value of these agreements. Publishers are therefore required to account for the articles published OA to consortia, academic institutions and research funders. One way publishers can do so is by providing regular reports with article-level metadata. This article uses the Knowledge Exchange (KE) and the Efficiency and Standards for Article Charges (ESAC) initiative recommendations as a check-list to assess what article-level metadata consortia request from publishers and what metadata publishers deliver to consortia. KE countries’ agreements with major publishers were analysed to assess how far consortia and publishers are from requesting and providing article-level metadata. The results from this research can be used as a benchmark to determine how major publishers were performing until early 2019 and prior to Plan S coming into effect in 2021. A recommendation is made that publishers use the article-level metadata check-list as a template to provide the metadata recommended by KE and ESAC.

Capisco: low-cost concept-based access to digital libraries | SpringerLink

Posted on by

Abstract:  In this article, we present the conceptual design and report on the implementation of Capisco—a low-cost approach to concept-based access to digital libraries. Capisco avoids the need for complete semantic document markup using ontologies by leveraging an automatically generated Concept-in-Context (CiC) network. The network is seeded by a priori analysis of Wikipedia texts and identification of semantic metadata. Our Capisco system disambiguates the semantics of terms in the documents by their semantics and context and identifies the relevant CiC concepts. Supplementary to this, the disambiguation of search queries is done interactively, to fully utilize the domain knowledge of the scholar. For established digital library systems, completely replacing, or even making significant changes to the document retrieval mechanism (document analysis, indexing strategy, query processing, and query interface) would require major technological effort and would most likely be disruptive. In addition to presenting Capisco, we describe ways to harness the results of our developed semantic analysis and disambiguation, while retaining the existing keyword-based search and lexicographic index. We engineer this so the output of semantic analysis (performed off-line) is suitable for import directly into existing digital library metadata and index structures, and thus incorporated without the need for architecture modifications.

 

Integrating Digital Humanities into the Web of Scholarship with SHARE

Posted on by

 

“The project Integrating Digital Humanities into the Web of Scholarship with SHARE (2017–2019) was designed to investigate the value SHARE could have for digital humanities (DH) scholars, by exploring how scholars promote discovery of their own DH work, and how they find digital scholarship or its components for their own use. The project leaders’ assumptions were that (1) discovery of DH scholarship was difficult because it relied on web discovery through keywords rather than structured metadata, and (2) structured metadata and improved discovery were essential for enabling the enduring stewardship of DH scholarship by the research library community….

More than 71% of survey respondents indicated their willingness to share their DH project assets in some way. Respondents also indicated they were most likely to share the raw assets that were captured through the digitization process or created through the project period. The majority of respondents shared their assets on GitHub and on personal websites….”