UoL Library Blog

Develop, debate, innovate.

Posts Tagged ‘authors’

Open Science

Posted by selinalock on 9 June, 2009

Just wanted to recommend this article to any science librarians out there:

Doing science in the open

by Michael Nielsen

A excellent distillation of the barriers facing open science. Issues such as a lack of trust infrastructure and incentives and a lack of appropriate collaborative/science network tools. Plus the fact that the current grant and journal system, which was initially set-up to ensure scientific discoveries were shared, is now stopping people from sharing their research in the more efficient ways offered by the web.

Posted in Open Access, Research Support, Web 2.0 & Emerging Technologies | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Repository Lingo 101

Posted by gazjjohnson on 28 May, 2009

I went to a very useful meeting with the BDRA this morning to talk about dissemination of their work vis-a-vie the repository (LRA).  I always enjoy these kind of meetings with academics, not solely because they can move a lot of things forward very quickly but because it reminds me just why we have a repository – to help these people get word of their work out into the world.

One of the things that came up in various discussions we had was about the meaning of repository related words – so I thought I’d blog a few commonly used terms in the repository world.

  • Ingest – to take material into the repository.  Also known as depositing, though commonly authors will deposit their article with the repository staff who then process it and ingest it into the repository.
  • Pre-review Version – sometimes known (c.f. SHERPA/RoMEO) as a pre-print, this is the version of an article originally submitted to the journal for the peer review process. 
  • Post-Review Version– the version that incorporates corrections following reviewer’s comments.  Known on SHERPA/RoMEO as the post-print version.
  • Author’s Final Version– we define that as the version that finally leaves the author’s hands and passes to the publisher, conference etc.  Might be functionally identical to post-review version or might incorporate minor changes suggested by the editor.  Crucially, this is also the version the LRA requests authors supply us with.
  • Publisher’s Version– also known as publisher’s PDF – the version as appears in the journal (print or online) with any or all journal formatting and dressing.   Few publishers allow this version to be ingested into a repository.
  • Pre-Print Version – still in use on some sites to indicate the pre-review version, though these days it can also mean any version prior to the publisher’s version.  Like post-print this term is beginning to fall into disuse.
  • Post-Print Version– normally these days this is analogous to the publisher’s version, and is used in many of their copyright agreements as analogous to definitive version.  However, on some sites (SHERPA/RoMEO included) and articles about open access or repositories post-print is analogous to post-review version.  Is slowly fading from the general lexicon of open access.
  • Definitive Version– a matter of some heated debate.  Publisher’s would argue that the definitive version is solely the one as appears in their publications.  Authors, and many in the OA world would agree that the author’s final version is just as definitive.  The debate will continue, and for now the version cited is largely the publisher’s version, though I’ve come across some people citing repository versions directly.

You can read a whole lot more about the terms used in the Open Access world on the SHERPA Glossary, the RSP site and over on the LRA site as well.

Posted in Leicester Research Archive | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Author identification

Posted by knockels on 6 April, 2009

If I had written a lot of papers, people wouldn’t have too much trouble disambiguating me.   There are not too many K. Nockels about.  Granted, I could appear in databases as Nockels K; Nockels KH; Nockels, Keith; Nockels, Keith H. but the problem is far greater if you want work by one specific Smith J, who might also appear as Smith JA. 

A recent piece in Science discusses this.   How can authors be disambiguated?   How can you tell that this Smith J is the same as that Smith JA?   Thomson Scientific’s ResearcherID is one solution, where you register and receive a number.     You then add references to your papers to your ResearcherID profile, by searching for them in Web of Science, or importing them as a file from EndNote or RefWorks (this was very good for me, as most of my publications are not in journals that are indexed in Web of Science).   You can register for ResearcherID if you have access to Web of Science or if someone invites you.    I am not clear that your ResearcherID information is fed into any other database, and if that is right, the only way to tell if a paper is by the person you are interested in is to search the ResearcherID database itself and hope that they have listed that paper as one of theirs.

Then there are disambiguation algorithms, as used by Web of Science.   Other schemes include a national ID scheme, as you find in the Netherlands, where there is a national network of repositories, the scheme being developed by people like the NIH, and the Scholar Universe Author Resolver (this links to RefWorks – thanks to my colleague Evelyn Cornell for mentioning this to me).

A possible problem is that one person will end up with multiple identifiers, or that something of theirs will not be linked to them because it depends on them to make the link.   

The problems of disambiguation are well known to any librarian and the Science piece discusses some of them.   Whether any of this will be a solution remains to be seen – I wonder if a partial solution is all we can hope for, and if so, how much of an advance this is on the present ambiguous situation.

Posted in Research Support | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Papers you might like to read

Posted by gazjjohnson on 20 March, 2009

Read the last one with an awareness that it was prepared by the Publishing sector, and so there is a discernible bias in some of the considerations (perhaps no more than those from the other side of the fence, but you’re forewarned!).

Posted in Wider profession | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

An author’s guide to blogging – some help & guidance

Posted by gazjjohnson on 4 September, 2008

As noted earlier we pioneering 4 wanted to expand out our test community to include a few more people, and hopefully by now you’ve had a chance to read the various emails I’ve sent out about it.

One thing we didn’t cover in the emails were any house rules and regulations for authors and commentors.  This blog is very much an informal knowledge exchange tool, which means we try to keep the tone light, informative and professional. It isn’t an appropriate place to air any inflammatory issues; rather it is a space to seek comment and input to areas you’re working on or to share/reflect on your own experiences. It is also a useful place to post links to articles or reports that are of interest to the library community.  We 4 have certainly learned quite a bit over the past couple of months already.

If you’ve never written for or read a blog before, we’d recommend following some of the links in the Blogroll(on the left) to see the tone and style adopted by other academic bloggers.  It might be that you’re actually a long time blogger with a different hat on (personally I’m into my 5th year of blogging now), in which case the four of us would like to invite you to start contributing sooner rather than later.  Don’t be afraid – no one is going to call you stupid!

I’ll leave you with Johnson’s good blogging conduct rules of thumb, which I’ll expect you all to inwardly digest and be able to quote from heart by next month:

  • Keep posts/comments short, light and readable (yes this post probably fails that test)
  • Don’t stress over the grammar – better out than in!
  • If you think it’s interesting, chances are someone else on staff does too and will benefit from it.
  • Add tags freely and plentiful – use categories sparingly (and please ask if you want to add more categories!)
  • Try and blog at least twice a month if not more – the more voices the blog has the more valuable and enjoyable it will be
  • Try and comment on at least one post a week – I will be keeping score.
  • There is no such thing as a bad post…(well almost)
  • If you’re unsure about anything- just ask me, Keith, Selina or Sarah
  • AND remember: anyone in the world could read your post/comment…so never blog anything you wouldn’t be prepared to stand up in the middle of a crowded room and shout about!

Posted in Blog admin, Web 2.0 & Emerging Technologies | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »