Posted by gazjjohnson on 15 January, 2010
I’ve been keen to set up a feed from our blog (the LRA) for new additions for some time, but I’ve always thought it would be a technological challenge. Turns out that it’s pretty easy if you’ve got an RSS output already, which we have.
I had a word with my contacts on twitter and as usual they came up aces with the answer – two suggestions a site called Twitterfeed or using HootDeck. This is how I did it.
- I registered a new twitter account for the repository UoLLRA. You don’t have to do that you can just use your own account – but I wanted this to be separate from my online identity.
- I went to Twitterfeed.com.
- I opted to register using an OpenID account, although you can set up your own personal registration on the site. Since the LRA has a GMail address I used this.
- Once logged in I created a new feed
- I named the feed and copied in the URL of the RSS feed of new additions to the site.
- I selected where this was to be posted to – in this case Twitter. As I was still logged into twitter I only had to authorise this access, rather log in again.
- And that was it – all new items added to the repository will automatically gain a little more exposure to the electronic world without me taking any additional action.
Now I just need to keep promoting http://www.twitter.com/UoLLRA to a few people and we can take it from there. Much much easier than I expected! Thanks to all the people who offered advice and suggestions via twitter!
Posted in Leicester Research Archive, Web 2.0 & Emerging Technologies | Tagged: automatic, configure, feed, how, ingest, new content, papers, research, RSS, set up, tweeting, twitter | 5 Comments »
Posted by gazjjohnson on 20 October, 2009
JISC has rolled out a very useful page and set of resources today in support of open access week.
In clear, plain english the page details the case for open access as well as the role JISC has been playing in supporting and developing the infra-structure in the UK to make it happen. As well as the general overview of the benefits of OA there’s also a selection of resources for researchers, institutions and publishers; detailing why OA matters for them. It includes a link to a wide range of resources and reports giving the scholarly background information that so many academics crave. I’ll certainly be reading through some of these over the coming weeks.
The section for publishers is aimed mostly at those whom are embracing open access publishing – be it as a pure OA journal or a more traditional one offering a pay-up-front option (a fee to make an article available as open access where normally it would be available to subscribers only).
Interestingly the site also offers a section on the business case for open access, something that I know is close to the hearts of many senior institutional administrators. I think this economic case is one I’d certainly like to know more about myself, as some of the discussions and 1-2-1 meetings I have with academics and staff at all levels move away from the philosophical “Open access is good for the research environment” and into the realm of “But what does it mean for the university as a business”.
The site also offers all the reports on a single page at the end, and while I know I’m never going to have a chance to read them all myself – they are certainly a worthy resource. I can see that this site will be helping me shape the workshop I’m running in December for new academic staff, as well as those I offer to PhD students.
Posted in Open Access | Tagged: background, business case, jisc, open access week, papers, references, resources, scholarly communication | Leave a Comment »
Posted by gazjjohnson on 21 August, 2009
A week or so ago I went through all the items on the LRA and looked at their usage figures since 1st Jan 09. Normally I only look at these figures month by month, but it was suggested to do this for the whole of the year and hence the study. Due to way DSpace is configured I could only scrape data for those used 20 times or more in a month – thus I can’t claim any great functional validity to these stats. Took a while as well to do the number crunching. But when I was done I was quite pleased with the overview that the data gave me.
What it did give once I summated the data was a very clear picture of the items in the repository that are being accessed the most. We’ve passed this information on to departments and many of the individual researchers themselves for interest, and to reward them in a small way for their compliance in placing items onto the LRA.
In terms of greatest number of appearances in the top 100 (rather than in all 588 items in my list)- the top 5 Depts. whose work is most regually accessed on the LRA are:
- Museum Studies
- Computer Science
Interesting. But how does this rack up when you consider what proportion of the items on the LRA come from a Dept.? Psychology may have 11 appearances in the top 100, but with 241 papers there’s more chance of them being up there as part of a critical mass of papers. So for interest I decided to divide the number of each Dept’s appearances in the top 100 by their total number of items on the LRA, to give what I’m calling Johnson’s Repository Significance Quotient (or JRSQ for short!). When sorted by their JRSQ how does the top 5 look now?
- Museum Studies
- Institute of Life Long Learning
- Social Work
- Computer Science
What this does tell me is that these collections are comprised of more papers overall that are getting high usage, though remember this is only taking into account the top 100 papers this year. I’m giving serious thought to going through the remaining 488 items in the list and including them in the data set. If there’s enough interest, maybe I will…
What does this all really mean? Well nothing most probably. The impact and usage of these items depends on too many variables to take account of in this quick and dirty analysis; such as custom and practice of searching for and using repository based items, use of personal networks to obtain papers, traditional journal usage, relative visibility on search engines of items in the LRA etc. Doubtless you’ll be able to think of many others. I’ve also not factored out full text items in the list from metadata only (this would be possible should it become a worthwhile endeavour).
Posted in Leicester Research Archive, Open Access | Tagged: analysis, institutional, papers, repository, statistics, top 100 | Leave a Comment »