Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Eberhard R. Hilf <>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:01:11 +0000

dear Colleagues,

I agree with Thomas that instead of 'enforce' you have to 'encourage'
showing the chance to get better seen by his/her scientific community
if he/she does some specific steps.

As an example: our Department has stopped ordering all high price journals
(keeping only those below 200$/a and Phys.Rev. and Phys Rev. Lett ,both
because of access to PROLA, the APS Archive back to 1875..). And uses
web-ordering and email copies pp now as a way to get information as
prerequisite for doing research.

However the other side of the medal is: the visibility of your own
research worldwide. [To be read is the aim of research, we are not paid
for reading, we only need reading]. We could show that this was bad:
online documents not even found in google or scirus, etc. By adding
metadata to them (using )
of PhysNet the visibility of the papers scored
one of the first three places in google etc. and got more read (weblog)
and cited. It is the advantage of repec that this information is offered
to the authors.

Second: the Research group homepages we measured with
which ranged from .17 to .75 and could show that you easily can improve
them using metadata to .85 and get a much better visibility.
I agree Physics is a large field and authors/readers often do not know
each other, in smaller fields this is different.

Received on Mon Mar 17 2003 - 00:01:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:55 GMT