UoL Library Blog

Develop, debate, innovate.

Posts Tagged ‘guide’

Surprise! EThOS changes its interface

Posted by gazjjohnson on 26 May, 2010

Spotted this morning by one of my eagle-eyed team (thanks Valérie) that the British Library EThOS e-thesis service has changed it’s interface.  For the most part this is the introduction of a few nicer looking buttons to replace text links.  However, the biggest change is the revision to how searching results now look.

Ethos searching results

Where a thesis is available for immediate download a little PDF symbol appears, although confusingly this is not a hot link.  You need to click on the hyperlinked title to access the individual thesis record.  However, on this next screen (shown below) you will not be able to download or even see the options for downloading unless you are logged into your personal EThOS account.

Downloading a thesis

Once logged in you will now see a somewhat alarming Choose Pricing/Delivery link click on this and you will be given the options.  I feel this is a little misleading given that many of the thesis (including my example above) are available for download at no cost.  At this point you can proceed through the familiar add to basket, confirmation, create order and finally download.

While this does improve the look and feel of the site I think it falls down on three points – the lack of announcement from Ethos that this was happening, the lack of updated user guides and the alarming Pricing/Delivery option that will put a lot of people off downloading theses for fear they will be charged.  While there are a number (around 30) universities who do charge the first user for new digitization of theses, the vast majority of us in the EThOS scheme (Leicester included) don’t, and so this is rather a false impression.

How the rest of the thesis user community reacts to this will be very interesting.

[Edit: Just noticed that some places, like Edinburgh above, have their university logo attached.  Leicester doesn’t (I’m not aware of us being approached for them to use it) currently have this appended to our theses on there.  I actually quite like this, as it helps with the branding – but I would like them to link back to our repository as well]

Posted in Document Supply, Open Access | 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 »

Policy-making for Research Data in Repositories: A Guide

Posted by gazjjohnson on 15 May, 2009

This rather interesting policy guide has just been brought out by JISC and DISC-UK DataShare project.  For once rather than being a lengthy report, it is actually a very useful tool kit for setting up the policies, workflows and the like for a research data repository.  It’s been something that the LRAPG has touched on in discussions, and I know the University in the future will be keen to develop.  Thus having a document like this, where a lot of the questions we need to ask and decisions that have to be taken are laid out in a very thorough manner.

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