Re: measuring affiliation

From: Pauline Simpson <ps_at_NOC.SOTON.AC.UK>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:09:29 +0100

One of the first policy decisions for repositories, is that of who can
deposit ie what size institutional footprint must researchers have to
include their work in the repository. I agree getting work out there as
open access is good, but the original question was about institutional
authors being included or not? Surely it is a given that repositories
include their own researcher's work whether they are first author or not?

But I thought there was a practical part to the question :

I thought the question also highlighted the amount of work to enter many
many authors. We usually list the first eleven authors (but that is an
arbitrary number) and then use et al (provided the institutional author is
in the first eleven). Otherwise we list the first author and any
institutional authors split by ... in the appropriate places to indicate
there are missing names.

This is not ideal, particularly for full citation purposes and retrieval
under authors listed by et al or ..., but ....


At 19:38 11/08/2006, Leslie Chan wrote:
>Heather is right. We also encourage our faculty to promote and assist with
>archiving of publications from scholarly associations and research networks
>they belong to. This enable scholars who are not formally affiliated with a
>university and researchers from resource-poor countries to have a place to
>archive their publications. It is a good way to use the repository as a
>community building tool.
>Leslie Chan
>On 8/11/06 1:12 PM, "Heather Morrison" <heatherm_at_ELN.BC.CA> wrote:
> > There are cases where it makes perfect sense to include articles
> > where the author has no affiliation with the institution at all - for
> > example, when an archive is hosting papers from a conference hosted
> > by the institution, or if a local journal wants to deposit articles
> > in the archive.
> >
> > There are also organizations which are affiliated with many
> > universities in a variety of ways, so determining affiliation can be
> > trickier than one would think sometimes - plus, there are authors who
> > move around, too.
> >
> > Flexibility is best - better to have more open access than to risk
> > losing access due to an inflexible rule.
> >
> > Heather Morrison
> >
> >
> > On 11-Aug-06, at 7:51 AM, Leslie Carr wrote:
> >
> >> On 11 Aug 2006, at 12:09, Wichor Bramer wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm not too keen to include these in our repository. what's your
> >>> opinion on
> >>> this? Should only articles where al least the first author is
> >>> affiliated to
> >>> the institution be entered. Where can we draw a line (if we can).
> >>> How much
> >>> author affiliation does one need?
> >>
> >> That's a matter of policy, but it would seem to be a strange and
> >> arbitrary policy that required a particular percentage of authorship
> >> to be allowed in.
> >>
> >> Many papers (especially in some disciplines) have large author lists:
> >> you could inadvertently find yourself discriminating against some
> >> departments in your institution.
> >> ---
> >> Les Carr

Pauline Simpson
Head of Information Services
National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK


Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 6111
Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 6115
Received on Mon Aug 14 2006 - 12:47:50 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:27 GMT