Re: ClinMed NetPrints

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 23:42:02 -0400

With reference to citations-- impact in this context means citations both
by other articles in the archive (and linked archives) and citations of
the archived item in conventional papers. Combining them may cause some
questions, especially if we also want to include citations of any
corresponding conventional publication. We want to distinguish what
version is cited, but we also want to count everything without counting
the same things twice.

David Goodman, Princeton University Biology Library 609-258-3235

On Thu, 24 May 2001, Tim Brody wrote:

> > [sh]> What two criteria? Certainly the archives should be interoperable
> > [sh]> (that's what is about, and what
> > [sh]> software is for), and certainly the citation-linking and
> > [sh]> impact-ranking should be across all the distributed corpus, just as
> > [sh]> the harvesting is. But apart from that, the only other criteria
> > [sh]> (apart from topic) are "unrefereed/refereed" and, for the latter,
> > [sh]> the journal brand-name (just as before).
> >
> > My two suggested criteria for evaluating an eprint archive (or, if you
> > prefer, please regard them instead as 'design & usability guidelines' for
> > an eprint archive) are:
> >
> > 1) its suitability as part of an (envisioned) universal archive
> > [an 'inter-operability' criterion?], and,
> A list of "Open Archives" is available from:
> Although, at the most extreme, any web-based archive could be harvested
> using a suitable sledgehammer.
> Without further development and adherence to metadata standards a /good/
> universal archive is not possible from existing archives (we need better
> defined semantics which, alas, is something archives are at the mercy of
> authors).
> > 2) its suitability for yielding citation data
> > [an 'impact-ranking' criterion?].
> Which, from my technical point of view, is the reference lists for the
> articles. As far as I'm aware no archives currently do this (I know
> cogprints provides the facility for authors to give this information, but
> does not re-export yet). Watch developments from OpCit!
> One might also add the facility to export "hit" data, as an alternative
> criterion (or any other raw statistical data?).
> > I understand that Stevan is suggesting a third:
> >
> > 3) its suitability for distinguishing between reports that either have, or
> > have not, been peer-reviewed and/or published in a 'brand-name' journal
> > (either before, or after, being included in the eprint archive)
> > [a 'sign-posting' criterion?].
> Which, ultimately, is a question of the "quality" of the archive - it is the
> archive that must ensure:
> a) Authors are correctly citing their work.
> b) That the serial being cited is deemed to be a 'brand-name' (would Stevan
> rather have his Science or New Scientist paper shown to the world? A
> decision that will most likely be made by the archive and its maintainers!)
> All the best,
> Tim Brody
Received on Wed Jan 03 2001 - 19:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:06 GMT