Re: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition

From: Leslie Carr <>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:16:39 +0100

On 12 Jul 2010, at 06:25, Leslie Chan wrote:

> This is rather circular. The view that academic papers should be fixed in
> form and format is rather out of sync with the emergence of new forms of
> scholarly expression enabled by the web.
I don't wish to argue that academic writing SHOULD BE fixed in format, merely to observe that IT IS predominantly so.

> " Academics should be encouraged to
> explore a heterogeneous range of formats, reaching different audiences and
> finding new ways to write about research."
When they do, we'll find a way to measure it :-)
If you believe they are in a significant way, let's do it!

> I think this discussion raises a fundamental question about the design of
> IRs and their support for scholarship. IRs must do better to capture the
> diversity of scholarly contribution and formats, and make them count in
> meaningful way.
I wholeheartedly concur.

> Do we really need more output based comparisons?
We need a range of comparisons of many sorts to get as full a picture as possible.

> How should we define the most "useful"? Should download and other usage
> stats be taken into consideration, instead of only in-bound links?
If we had access to those statistics, by all means lets use them.

> Why wait for Microsoft? What has the the open source community be doing on
> this front? What about OpenOffice? Any good open source NLM DTD conversion
> tools out there? Why has it taken so long?

If there was something for open office then it would be trivial for repositories to apply it to Microsoft Word documents.
Les Carr
Received on Mon Jul 12 2010 - 14:21:01 BST

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