DOCSLIB.ORG

CAUL Review of Australian Repository Infrastructure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CAUL Review of Australian Repository Infrastructure CAUL Fair, affordable and open access to knowledge program CAUL Review of Australian Repository Infrastructure Review of Australian Repository Infrastructure A project within the CAUL Fair, affordable and open access to knowledge program To: Director, FAIR Access to Research Program, CAUL From: Project Leader, Review of Australian Repository Infrastructure Subject: Report from the Review of Australian Repository Infrastructure Date: Version 15 March 2019 Dear Catherine, On behalf of the Project Team I am pleased to provide you with the report from the CAUL Review of Australian Repository Infrastructure, a project of the CAUL Fair, affordable and open access to knowledge program. The project was resourced using a large number of volunteers from across the CAUL member libraries. This model has proved to be successful. This final version of the report includes reports from work packages #1 - #7. All feedback provided by the 2/2018 CAUL Council meeting a community consultation process conducted in February/March 2019 were considered and incorporated into the document where possible. Suggested changes to project scope could not be incorporated into the project and the report at this stage. Best regards, Martin Borchert Project Lead Page 2 of 171 CAUL (Council of Australian University Librarians) +61 2 6125 2990 | [email protected] | www.caul.edu.au Table of Contents Project Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 #1 Review and Report on the current Australasian institutional research repository infrastructure…………………………………………………………………………………………………................................... 9 #2 Report on International research repository infrastructure and developments…………………………20 #3 Repository User Stories……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..29 #4 Recommend and make improvements to the current Australasian research repository infrastructure (improve and make the most of what we have) ………………………………………………………40 #5 Develop and report on an ideal state for Australian repository infrastructure and FAIR access to research more generally………………………………………………………………………………………………….52 #6 Next generational repository tools and general requirements…………………………………………………..60 #7 Review and Report on the Potential for a Research Australia Collection……………………………………71 Appendix 1: Project Initiation Document ………....................................................................................81 Appendix 2: Project Plan…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………84 Appendix 3: Summary table of Infrastructure/Tools/Supporting Organisations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….96 Appendix 4: Force 11 FAIR principles…………………………………………………………………………………………….125 Appendix 5: Functional areas for repository user stories………………………………………………………………126 Appendix 6: Full list of recommendations identified from Products #1-#3……………………………………127 Appendix 7: Non-functional requirements……………………………………………………………………………………129 Appendix 8: Feedback provided at the CAUL 2018 / 2 meeting…………………………………………………….157 Appendix 9: Feedback provided in 2019……………………………………………………………………………………….171 Page 3 of 171 CAUL (Council of Australian University Librarians) +61 2 6125 2990 | [email protected] | www.caul.edu.au Project Overview Project Initiation Document The original project initiation document, produced by Jill Benn, is provided as Appendix 1. Project Plan The project plan, produced by Martin Borchert and refined by the project Steering Committee, is provided as Appendix 2. Project Steering Committee Members Ginny Barbour Director, AOASG Martin Borchert University Librarian, UNSW (Chair) Katrina Dewis Associate Director (Acting), UTas Janet Fletcher University Librarian, Victoria University, Wellington Maude Frances Associate Director, Library Digital Repositories, UNSW Andrew Harrison Research Repository Librarian, Monash University Julia Hickie Assistant Director, Trove Data, Discovery and Delivery, NLA Harry Rolf CAUL Communications Officer (Support) Alexander Sussman Associate Director, Academic Services, UNSW Natasha Simons Program Lead, Skills Policy and Resources, ANDS Belinda Tiffen Director, Library Resources Unit, UTS Page 4 of 171 CAUL (Council of Australian University Librarians) +61 2 6125 2990 | [email protected] | www.caul.edu.au Executive Summary The purpose of the CAUL project is to review the current state of the Australian institutional research repository infrastructure. The objectives were to make observations and recommendations on possible ways forward for the Australian repository infrastructure and management. CAUL executives approved a Project Initiation Document (PID) for CAUL Review of Australian Repository Infrastructure Project in late 2017 and called for EOIs to lead the project. Martin Borchert, University Librarian at UNSW Sydney, was appointed to lead the project. An EOI was sent out for community members to join the project. A Project Steering Committee was established in early 2018 and a Project Plan was developed which set out 7 work packages to be completed to achieve the project goals. A work schedule was established which ensured work packages would be carried in parallel and making reference to each in turn, in order to achieve producing outputs in time for the CAUL 2018 / 2 meeting in September. Information was gained through discussions amongst project team members, consultation with stakeholders via an online survey and semi-structured interviews, and by assessing repository infrastructure, processes and policies against the FAIR principles – Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. A draft project report consisting of work packages #1 - #6 was presented at the CAUL 2018 / 2 meeting and feedback was sought. Work package #7 was completed in January 2019 and added to the draft report. A community engagement process was conducted in February – March 2019 and consisted of a Zoom online video session for community members and a SurveyMonkey online form used to solicit feedback against each work package and recommendation. Feedback is provided in the Appendices. Feedback was considered by the Project Steering Committee and the final report produced for presentation to the CAUL 2019 / 1 meeting (April). Through the completion of work packages, it was found that: • Australian repository infrastructure is diverse with numerous mature and new generation, local and cloud hosted, open source and proprietary solutions in use. • While all institutions endeavour to make published research outputs openly available, only half make research data available. • Non-research related collections – archival library collections, images and multimedia, and course materials are also in scope for a minority of institutions. • Less than half of Australia’s universities have an Open Access Policy or statement for research outputs. • Two-thirds of institutional repositories support grant funder policies, only one-third monitor compliance, and one-quarter use Research Activity Identifiers. • Only one-third of institutions have a preservation strategy for their repository collection. • While [lack of] harvesting by Google and Google Scholar was initially thought to be an issue, this is not the case with 90% of institutions reporting satisfactory harvesting. Further inspection demonstrated that the remainder of institutional repository Page 5 of 171 CAUL (Council of Australian University Librarians) +61 2 6125 2990 | [email protected] | www.caul.edu.au collections are actually being harvested either directly, or via Trove which is harvested by Google, but not Google Scholar. • Interoperability is of primary concern to the current and next generation repository systems. • The Australasian repository landscape would benefit from greater connection with international repository developments such as via Coalition of Open Access repositories (COAR) membership. • The Australasian repository landscape would benefit from increased coordination and support via a technical advisory group which could lead initiatives on training, interoperability, metadata, standards and system requirements. This group would build upon the excellent work undertaken by the CAIRSS group / CAUL Repositories Community Group. • User stories based around Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable can be defined, which help to direct resources and attention for repository development. • Existing Australian repository infrastructure can be improved via the work of a technical advisory group, however the diversity of systems and investment in the landscape, means that this is complex and that benefits would not be evenly spread across institutions. Many institutions report a reluctance to further invest in their legacy repository system, having a preference for a next generation system. • A series of ideal state statements could be identified to provide direction to the technical advisory group and future project work. Again, the diversity of institutional policies and infrastructure makes it difficult to apply ideal state statements across the landscape. • A range of attractive, current and next generation repository tools are available, these being open source, proprietary or commercially hosted and supported open source. This suggests an opt-in consortium procurement and implementation process may be a suitable avenue for updating institutional repository systems to bring them uniformly up to minimum system requirements and standards. It was found only a minority of institutions, perhaps a hand full, would partake in a shared infrastructure procurement process, questioning the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MAJ 04/2021, Cf. Feuilletage Ci-Dessous
    Recherche d’informations sur Internet (perfectionnement) méthodologie et outils disponibles A. Bouchard 04/2021 Pour commencer Principes Moteurs de recherche Sites internet Bases de données bibliographiques Autres bases de données textuelles Images et multimédia Web social Actualités et temps réel Quelques outils complémentaires Veille automatisée Exercices de synthèse Bibliographie Principes Internet ? web ? • internet • réseau de réseaux • fin des années 1960 • protocole TCP/IP • applications et services divers : courrier électronique (mail), messagerie instantanée (IM), forums de discussion, transfert de fichiers (FTP), pair à pair (P2P), web (www)… • données • utilisateurs : 5,1 MM. dans le monde (Internet World Stats, 2020) • langues : 61 % du contenu en anglais, 2,8 % en français (W3Techs, 2021) • voir également Internet live stats Internet ? web ? • Web • World Wide Web (www) • milieu des années 1990 • ensemble de pages HTML (textes, images, liens…) avec une URL et accessibles avec le protocole HTTP • web visible / web invisible • web invisible ou web profond (deep web) : partie du web non indexée et qui ne peut être trouvée par les moteurs de recherche (pages protégées par un mot de passe, pages générées dynamiquement à la suite d’une requête…), voire dark web (web illégal) : 95 % du total ? • taille • 1,2 MM. de sites (Netcraft) • web indexé : au moins 5,3 milliards de pages (Worldwidewebsize) • taille du web identifié (URL connues) ? web général ? Internet ? web ? Ascodocpsy ConceptArt multimédia, 2010 Les âges du web du web âges Les Méthodologie • DEBUSQUER l’information Différents outils Esprit critique Bookmark organisé URL significative Syntaxe de recherche Questions préalables Utilisation réfléchie Evaluation Règles à respecter d’après Eduscol. Rechercher sur internet Méthodologie 1° définir le sujet (contexte de la recherche et mots-clés) Questions Prendre du temps au départ pour en gagner par la suite..
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography of Erik Wilde
    dretbiblio dretbiblio Erik Wilde's Bibliography References [1] AFIPS Fall Joint Computer Conference, San Francisco, California, December 1968. [2] Seventeenth IEEE Conference on Computer Communication Networks, Washington, D.C., 1978. [3] ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Los Angeles, Cal- ifornia, March 1982. ACM Press. [4] First Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 1986. [5] 1987 ACM Conference on Hypertext, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, November 1987. ACM Press. [6] 18th IEEE International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing, Tokyo, Japan, 1988. IEEE Computer Society Press. [7] Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Portland, Oregon, 1988. ACM Press. [8] Conference on Office Information Systems, Palo Alto, California, March 1988. [9] 1989 ACM Conference on Hypertext, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, November 1989. ACM Press. [10] UNIX | The Legend Evolves. Summer 1990 UKUUG Conference, Buntingford, UK, 1990. UKUUG. [11] Fourth ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Hilton Head, South Carolina, November 1991. [12] GLOBECOM'91 Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, 1991. IEEE Computer Society Press. [13] IEEE INFOCOM '91 Conference on Computer Communications, Bal Harbour, Florida, 1991. IEEE Computer Society Press. [14] IEEE International Conference on Communications, Denver, Colorado, June 1991. [15] International Workshop on CSCW, Berlin, Germany, April 1991. [16] Third ACM Conference on Hypertext, San Antonio, Texas, December 1991. ACM Press. [17] 11th Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, Houston, Texas, 1992. IEEE Computer Society Press. [18] 3rd Joint European Networking Conference, Innsbruck, Austria, May 1992. [19] Fourth ACM Conference on Hypertext, Milano, Italy, November 1992. ACM Press. [20] GLOBECOM'92 Conference, Orlando, Florida, December 1992. IEEE Computer Society Press. http://github.com/dret/biblio (August 29, 2018) 1 dretbiblio [21] IEEE INFOCOM '92 Conference on Computer Communications, Florence, Italy, 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Future of Scholarly Publishing
    THE OPEN SCIENCE INITIATIVE WORKING GROUP Mapping the Future of Scholarly Publishing The Open Science Initiative (OSI) is a working group convened by the National Science Communi- cation Institute (nSCI) in October 2014 to discuss the issues regarding improving open access for the betterment of science and to recommend possible solutions. The following document summa- rizes the wide range of issues, perspectives and recommendations from this group’s online conver- sation during November and December 2014 and January 2015. The 112 participants who signed up to participate in this conversation were drawn mostly from the academic, research, and library communities. Most of these 112 were not active in this conversa- tion, but a healthy diversity of key perspectives was still represented. Individual participants may not agree with all of the viewpoints described herein, but participants agree that this document reflects the spirit and content of the conversation. This main body of this document was written by Glenn Hampson and edited by Joyce Ogburn and Laura Ada Emmett. Additional editorial input was provided by many members of the OSI working group. Kathleen Shearer is the author of Annex 5, with editing by Dominque Bambini and Richard Poynder. CC-BY 2015 National Science Communication Institute (nSCI) www.nationalscience.org [email protected] nSCI is a US-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization First edition, January 2015 Final version, April 2015 Recommended citation: Open Science Initiative Working Group, Mapping the Future of Scholarly
    [Show full text]
  • Do You Speak Open Science? Resources and Tips to Learn the Language
    Do You Speak Open Science? Resources and Tips to Learn the Language. Paola Masuzzo1, 2 - ORCID: 0000-0003-3699-1195, Lennart Martens1,2 - ORCID: 0000- 0003-4277-658X Author Affiliation 1 Medical Biotechnology Center, VIB, Ghent, Belgium 2 Department of Biochemistry, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Abstract The internet era, large-scale computing and storage resources, mobile devices, social media, and their high uptake among different groups of people, have all deeply changed the way knowledge is created, communicated, and further deployed. These advances have enabled a radical transformation of the practice of science, which is now more open, more global and collaborative, and closer to society than ever. Open science has therefore become an increasingly important topic. Moreover, as open science is actively pursued by several high-profile funders and institutions, it has fast become a crucial matter to all researchers. However, because this widespread interest in open science has emerged relatively recently, its definition and implementation are constantly shifting and evolving, sometimes leaving researchers in doubt about how to adopt open science, and which are the best practices to follow. This article therefore aims to be a field guide for scientists who want to perform science in the open, offering resources and tips to make open science happen in the four key areas of data, code, publications and peer-review. The Rationale for Open Science: Standing on the Shoulders of Giants One of the most widely used definitions of open science originates from Michael Nielsen [1]: “Open science is the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared as early as is practical in the discovery process”.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Design of Open Social Web for Crowdsourced Democracy
    Project no. 610349 D-CENT Decentralised Citizens ENgagement Technologies Specific Targeted Research Project Collective Awareness Platforms D4.3 Technical Design of Open Social Web for Crowdsourced Democracy Version Number: 1 Lead beneficiary: OKF Due Date: 31 October 2014 Author(s): Pablo Aragón, Francesca Bria, Primavera de Filippi, Harry Halpin, Jaakko Korhonen, David Laniado, Smári McCarthy, Javier Toret Medina, Sander van der Waal Editors and reviewers: Robert Bjarnason, Joonas Pekkanen, Denis Roio, Guido Vilariño Dissemination level: PU Public X PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) Approved by: Francesca Bria Date: 31 October 2014 This report is currently awaiting approval from the EC and cannot be not considered to be a final version. FP7 – CAPS - 2013 D-CENT D4.3 Technical Design of Open Social Web for Crowdsourced Democracy Contents 1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Description of the D-CENT Open Democracy pilots ............................................................................................. 8 Description of the lean development process .......................................................................................................... 10 Hypotheses statements
    [Show full text]
  • The W3C Social Web Activity
    Standardizing the Social Web: The W3C Social Web Activity Harry Halpin World Wide Web Consortium/MIT, 32 Vassar Street Cambridge, MA 02139 USA [email protected] Abstract. The focus of the Social Activity is on making “social” a first-class citizen of the Open Web Platform by enabling standardized protocols, APIs, and an architecture for standardized communication among Social Web applications. These technologies are crucial for both federated social networking and the success of social business between and within the enterprise. Keywords: decentralization, social web, RDF 1Introduction The focus of the W3C Social Activity is on making “social” a first-class citizen of the Open Web Platform by enabling standardized protocols, APIs,andan architecture for standardized communication among Social Web applications. These technologies are crucial for both federated social networking and social business between and within the enterprise and can be built on top of Linked Data. This work will knit together via interoperable standards a number of industry platforms, including IBM Connections, SAP Jam, Jive, SugarCRM, and grassroots efforts such as IndieWeb.1 The mission of the Social Web Working Group,2 part of the Social Activ- ity,3 is to define the technical protocols, Semantic Web vocabularies, andAPIs to facilitate access to social functionality as part of the Open Web Platform. These technologies should allow communication between independent systems, federation (also called “decentralization”) being part of the design. The Working Group is chaired by Tantek Celik (Mozilla), Evan Prodromou (E14N), and Ar- naud Le Hors (IBM). Also part of the Social Activity is the Social Interest Group 4 focuses on messaging and co-ordination in the larger space.
    [Show full text]
  • Aggregating Research Papers from Publishers' Systems to Support Text
    Aggregating Research Papers from Publishers’ Systems to Support Text and Data Mining: Deliberate Lack of Interoperability or Not? Petr Knoth, Nancy Pontika The Open University Walton Drive, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom [email protected], [email protected] Abstract In the current technology dominated world, interoperability of systems managed by different organisations is an essential property enabling the provision of services at a global scale. In the Text and Data Mining field (TDM), interoperability of systems offering access to text corpora offers the opportunity of increasing the uptake and impact of TDM applications. The global corpus of all research papers, i.e. the collection of human knowledge so large no one can ever read in their lifetime, represents one of the most exciting opportunities for TDM. Although the Open Access movement, which has been advocating for free availability and reuse rights to TDM from research papers, has achieved some major successes on the legal front, the technical interoperability of systems offering free access to research papers continues to be a challenge. COnnecting REpositories (CORE) (Knoth and Zdrahal, 2012) aggregates the world’s open access full-text scientific manuscripts from repositories, journals and publisher systems. One of the main goals of CORE is to harmonise and pre-process these data to lower the barrier for TDM. In this paper, we report on the preliminary results of an interoperability survey of systems provided by journal publishers, both open access and toll access. This helps us to assess the current level of systems’ interoperability and suggest ways forward. Keywords: Interoperability, publishers, standardisation 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Exposing Dmps: Use Cases, Workflows and Guidelines
    Exposing DMPs: Use cases, workflows and guidelines Case statement for community review July 2017 Contributors David Carr - The Wellcome Trust John Chodacki, California Digital Library John Faundeen, Earth Resources Observation Center, USGS Bev Jones University of Lincoln Natalie Meyers, Centre for Open Science/ University of Notre Dame Paul Millar, DESY Fiona Murphy, MMC Ltd Kathryn Unsworth, Australian National Data Service Angus Whyte, Digital Curation Centre (Editor) Elena Zudilova-Seinstra, Elsevier Working Group Charter A variety of stakeholders are showing growing interest in exposing data management plans (*) to other actors (human/machine) in the research lifecycle, beyond their creator and the funder or institution that mandates their production. Interested stakeholders include researchers themselves, funders, institutions, and a variety of service providers and community organisations including repositories, institutions, journals, publishers, and providers of tools for writing and maintaining plans. Implementation and adoption is currently hampered by two problems: ● A lack of standards for expression and interchange of DMPs ● Insufficient understanding of the needs of users and the benefits and risks of different modes of action This proposed working group will address both of these issues; the issue of a standardised form of expression for DMPs is the concern of the proposed DMP Common Standards Working Group. The group’s output will include a reference model and alternative strategies for exposing plans, to best serve community interests in meeting FAIR principles,1 based on shared experience of ‘early adopters’ in test implementations. It will be supported by work to gauge user needs and motivations for exposing DMPs as well as perceived risks and disbenefits.
    [Show full text]
  • K-ICT · Ver.2017 –
    http://www.tta.or.kr K-ICT Ver.2017 – /SW/ SW· - ( / , / , ), SW( , SW ), SW· ( / , ) TTA - 16142 - SD Service offering ( | ) ~'19, JTC1 SC34, IDPF, W3C ( | ) ~'19, JTC1 SC29 WG11 AR/VR App. AV App. ( ) KS X 6070-1~5 (EPUB) 3.0 , (EPUB) 3.0, (EPUB) 3.0, e-Learning App. (TTA) TTA.KO-10.0611 - Digital Signage App. Web App. , 2016-118 ( | ) ~'18, JTC1 SC29 WG11, SC24 ( | ) ~'18, JTC1 SC29 WG11 (EPUB) 3.0, (EPUB) 3.0 / SNS App. (HMD) (TTA) TTAK.OT-10.0337 - EPUB 2 , .0338 - EPUB 3.0, .0339 - EPUB , 2016-119 PC (TTA) TTAK.KO-10.0874 – (TTA) TTAK.KO-10.0317- 3.0, .0340 - EPUB 3 , .0341 - EPUB 3.0, .0342 - EPUB A/V/Data Terminal Control, (HMD) / 3.0, .0727 - EPUB , KR04-1 - EPUB3 EDUPUB , -2 - EPUB Service Info. Management (JTC1) Exploration Part # 12(Free-viewpoint TV) 1.0, -3 - EPUB 1.0, -4 - EPUB 1.0 DRM Service (JTC1) ISO/IEC 23000-13 Information technology - Call for Evidence on Free-Viewpoint Television: (JTC1) ISO/IEC 14496-10:2012 , NTP/ (ODPF) KR03-1 - EPUB 3.0.1 , -2 - EPUB 3.0.1, -3 - EPUB 3.0.1, -4 - EPUB Discovery ID Network DHCP DNS IGMP - Multimedia application format (MPEG-A) -- Part Super-Multiview and Free Navigation – update, Information technology -- Coding of 3.0.1, -5 - EPUB 3.0.1, -6 - EPUB 3.0.1 ( | ) ~'19, Web3D, JTC1 SC24 WG6/WG9, JTC1 SC29, JTC1 SC35, JTC1 SC36 MPEG / H.264, 265 audio-visual objects -- Part 10: Advanced agent Provisioning SNTP 13: Augmented reality application format, ISO/IEC Exploration Part # 12(Free-viewpoint TV) - FTV HDR (ISO TC171 SC2) ISO 32000-1 - PDF(portable document format) 23005-5 Information
    [Show full text]
  • Book of Abstracts Ii Contents
    CERN Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication (OAI8) Wednesday, 19 June 2013 - Friday, 21 June 2013 University of Geneva Book of Abstracts ii Contents Altmetrics in the Wild - Alternative Impact Measurement for Scientific Publications . 1 BG1 - Gold OA Infrastructure (Room 1140) .......................... 1 BG2 - Open Annotations (Room 1150) ............................. 1 BG3 - Altmetrics (Room R160) ................................. 2 BG4 - Open Access Policy Developments (Room R170) ................... 2 BG5 - How to make your university into a monograph publisher? (Room 1130) . 2 BG6 - Reusing Open Acces materials - a Wikimedia perspective (Room R150) . 3 BG6 - Using Wikipedia’s popularity to share research .................... 3 CERIF for Datasets (C4D) .................................... 3 COnnecting REpositories (CORE) - the current state of aggregating Open Access content 4 Citation Finder. A tool for enhancing bibliographic research by extracting references from unstructured scholarly works ............................... 4 DML-CZ, Czech Digital Mathematics Library ......................... 4 Empowering Development: Why Open is Right for Development ............. 5 EuDML, the European Digital Mathematics Library ..................... 5 Guidelines towards implementing Open Access policies ................... 6 Humanities Session: OA Research Monographs in HSS: Opportunities & Challenges . 6 Humanities Session: The Humanities in and for the Digital Age .............. 7 Hydra: open, flexible workflows and community for
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook of E-Resources from Yenepoya Central Library
    Yenepoya Central Library The Handbook of E-Resources Prepared by: Verified by: Dr. K. S. Ali Dr. Mamatha P.K Deputy Librarian Chief Librarian E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Phone no. +91-9686618671 Phone no. +91-9845783853 Extn. no.2067 Extn. no. 5085 Updated on 12-05-2020 Dr. K. S. Ali E-Resources Handbook List of E-Resources Subscribed by Yenepoya (Deemed to be University) Access Details Name Descriptions Discipline User ID credential, Remote Remote Access If any Access URL Links Web of Science is a platform consisting of several Web of Science literature search databases designed to support No Click Here scientific and scholarly research. Multidiscipline Yes The evidence-based clinical decision support UpToDate resource from Wolters Kluwer, is trusted at the Healthcare No Click Here point of care by clinicians worldwide. Professionals Yes Clinical Key supports healthcare professionals and students with the latest evidence across specialities Healthcare Click Here in a variety of formats, including full-text reference Yes Professionals Clinical Key books and journals, point-of-care monographs, drug No information, videos, practice guidelines, customised patient education handouts and more. The BMJ share that global endeavour with millions The BMJ (online) of readers working in clinical practice, research, education, government, and with patients and the Healthcare No Click Here public too. Professionals Yes BMJ Case Reports is an important educational resource offering a high volume of cases in all disciplines so that healthcare professionals, Healthcare Click Here researchers and others can easily find clinically Professionals BMJ Case Report important information on common and rare No conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Relationships Between Metadata Application and Downloads in an Institutional Repository of an American Law School
    volume 28, issue 1, pages 13-24 (2018) Relationships Between Metadata Application and Downloads in an Institutional Repository of an American Law School Hollie C. White Libraries, Archives, Records, and Information Science (LARIS), School of Media, Creative Arts, and Social Inquiry Curtin University, Australia [email protected] Sean Chen Duke Law School, Duke University, United States [email protected] Guangya Liu Duke Law School, Duke University, United States [email protected] ABSTRACT Background. The Duke Law Scholarship Repository is a successful digital repository of an American law school, with over 1 million downloads per year. A series of studies were conducted to understand the relationship between metadata work and downloads. Objective. The paper reports an analysis of the relationships between certain metadata elements and repository downloads. Methods. Quantitative statistical methods, specifically correlation, t-test and multiple regression analysis, were used. Results. Statistically significant relationships were found between download frequency and factors relating to abstract, co-authors, page count and discipline. Negative statistically significant relationships were found between download frequency and free text keywords, as well as controlled vocabulary subject terms. Contributions. This study is an example of how in-use repository system administrators can demonstrate the impact of metadata work for institutional scholarly outreach. Also, this study adds another dimension to the keyword and searching/download
    [Show full text]