Re: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition

From: (wrong string) élène.Bosc <>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 23:03:40 +0200

Thank you for your Ranking Web of World Repositories and for informing us
about the best quality repositories!

Being French, I am delighted to see HAL so well ranked and I take this
opportunity to congratulate Franck Laloe for having set up such a good
national repository as well as the CCSD team for continuing to maintain and
improve it.

Nevertheless, there is a problem in your ranking that I have already had
occasion to point out to you in private messages.
May I remind you that:

Correction for the top 800 ranking:

The ranking should either index HyperHAL alone, or index both HAL/INRIA and
HAL/SHS, but not all three repositories at the same time: HyperHAL includes
both HAL/INRIA and HAL/SHS .

Correction for the ranking of institutional repositories:

Not only does HyperHAL (#1) include both HAL/INRIA (#3) and HAL/SHS (#5), as
noted above, but HyperHAL is a multidisciplinary repository, intended to
collect all French research output, across all institutions. Hence it should
not be classified and ranked against individual institutional repositories
but as a national, central repository. Indeed, even HAL/SHS is
multi-institutional in the usual sense of the word: single universities or
research institutions. The classification is perhaps being misled by the
polysemous use of the word "institution."

Not to seem to be biassed against my homeland, I would also point out that,
among the top 10 of the top 800 "institutional repositories," CERN (#2) is
to a certain extent hosting multi-institutional output too, and is hence not
strictly comparable to true single-institution repositories. In addition,
"California Institute of Technology Online Archive of California" (#9) is
misnamed -- it is the Online Archive of California
(CDLIB, not CalTech) and as such it too is multi-institutional. And Digital
Library and Archives Virginia Tech University (#4) may also be anomalous, as
it includes the archives of electronic journals with multi-institutional
content. Most of the multi-institutional anomalies in the "Top 800
Institutional" seem to be among the top 10 -- as one would expect if
multiple institutional content is inflating the apparent size of a
repository. Beyond the top 10 or so, the repositories look to be mostly true
institutional ones.

I hope that this will help in improving the next release of your
increasingly useful ranking!

Best wishes
Hélène Bosc

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:07 PM
Subject: Fwd: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Isidro F. Aguillo" <isidro.aguillo_at_CCHS.CSIC.ES>
Date: July 6, 2010 11:13:58 AM EDT
Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition

Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition

The second edition of 2010 Ranking Web of Repositories has been published
the same day OR2010 started here in Madrid. The ranking is available from
the following URL:

The main novelty is the substantial increase in the number of repositories
analyzed (close to 1000). The Top 800 are ranked according to their web
presence and visibility. As usual thematic repositories (CiteSeer, RePEc,
Arxiv) leads the Ranking, but the French research institutes (CNRS, INRIA,
SHS) using HAL are very close. Two issues have changed from previous
editions from a methodologicall point of view:, the use of Bing's engine
data has been discarded due to irregularities in the figures obtained and MS
Excel files has been excluded again.

At the end of July the new edition of the Rankings of universities, research
centers and hospitals will be published.

Comments, suggestions and additional information are greatly appreciated.

Isidro F. Aguillo, HonPhD
Cybermetrics Lab (3C1)
Albasanz, 26-28
28037 Madrid. Spain
Editor of the Rankings Web
Received on Wed Jul 07 2010 - 22:56:01 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:50:11 GMT