17.067 new on WWW: article on research access; Scholarly E-Pub Bibliography ver 49

From: Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk)
Date: Sat Jun 07 2003 - 02:45:23 EDT

  • Next message: Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty

                    Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 17, No. 67.
           Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                         Submit to: humanist@princeton.edu

       [1] From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> (67)
             Subject: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003

       [2] From: "Charles W. Bailey, Jr." <cbailey@UH.EDU> (78)
             Subject: Version 49, Scholarly Electronic Publishing

             Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 07:13:27 +0100
             From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
             Subject: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003

    The brief article (full-text below) appears today, Friday June 6, 2003
    in the Times Higher Education Supplement.
              Toll access: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y5DE124D4
              Toll-free access to fuller versions, with links:
                      http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/thes.html and

              "Why I believe that all UK research output should be online"
                              Stevan Harnad

    Unlike journalists or book authors, researchers receive no royalties or
    fees for their writings. They write for "research impact", the sum of
    all the effects of their work on the work of others and on the society
    that funds it. So how research is read, used, cited and built on in
    further research and applications needs to be measured.

    One natural way to measure research impact would be to adopt the
    approach of the web search engine Google. Google measures the importance
    of a website. It does this by rank-ordering search results according to
    how many other websites link to them: the more links, the higher the
    rank. This works amazingly well, but it is far too crude for measuring
    research impact, which is about how much a paper is being used by other
    researchers. There is, however, a cousin of web links that researchers
    have been using for decades as a measure of impact: citations.

    Citations reference the building blocks that a piece of research uses to
    make its own contribution to knowledge. The more often a paper is used
    as a building block, the higher its research impact. Citation counts are
    powerful measures of impact. One study has shown that in the field of
    psychology, citation counts predict the outcome of the research
    assessment exercise with an accuracy of more than 80 per cent.

    The RAE involves ranking all departments in all universities by their
    research impact and then funding them accordingly. Yet it does not count
    citations. Instead, it requires universities to spend vast amounts of
    time compiling dossiers of all sorts of performance indicators. Then
    still more time and effort is expended by teams of assessors assessing
    and ranking all the dossiers.

    In many cases, citation counts alone would save at least 80 per cent of
    all that time and effort. But the Google-like idea also suggests ways to
    do even better, enriching citation counts by another measure of impact:
    how often a paper is read. Web "hits" (downloads) predict citations that
    will come later. To be used and cited, a paper first has to be accessed
    and read. And downloads are also usage (and hence impact) measures in
    their own right.

    Google also uses "hubs" and "authorities" to weight link counts. Not all
    links are equal. It means more to be linked to by a high-link site than
    a low-link site. This is the exact equivalent to co-citation analysis,
    in which it matters more if you are cited by a Nobel laureate than by a
    new postdoc.

    What this new world of webmetrics needs to be mined and used to
    encourage and reward research is not a four-yearly exercise in
    paperwork. All university research output should be continuously
    accessible and hence assessable online: not only the references cited
    but the full text. Then computer programs can be used to extract a whole
    spectrum of impact indicators, adjustable for any differences between

    Nor are time-saving, efficiency, power and richness of these webmetric
    impact indicators their only or even principal benefits. For the
    citation counts of papers whose full texts are already freely accessible
    on the web are more than 300 per cent higher than those that are not. So
    all of UK research stands to increase its impact dramatically by being
    put online. Every researcher should have a standardised electronic CV,
    continuously updated with all the RAE performance indicators listed and
    every journal paper linked to its full-text in that university's online
    "eprint" archive. Webmetric assessment engines can do all the rest.

    At Southampton University, we have designed (free) software for creating
    the RAE CVs and eprint archives along with citebase, a webmetric engine
    that analyses citations and downloads. The only thing still needed is a
    national policy of self-archiving all research output to enhance and
    assess its impact.

    Details: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad

             Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 07:13:50 +0100
             From: "Charles W. Bailey, Jr." <cbailey@UH.EDU>
             Subject: Version 49, Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography

    Version 49 of the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography
    is now available. This selective bibliography presents over
    1,900 articles, books, and other printed and electronic sources
    that are useful in understanding scholarly electronic publishing
    efforts on the Internet.

           HTML: http://info.lib.uh.edu/sepb/sepb.html

           Acrobat: http://info.lib.uh.edu/sepb/sepb.pdf

    The HTML document is designed for interactive use. Each
    major section is a separate file. There are links to sources
    that are freely available on the Internet. It can be can be
    searched using Boolean operators.

    The HTML document includes three sections not found in
    the Acrobat file:

    (1) Archive (prior versions of the bibliography)


    (2) Scholarly Electronic Publishing Resources (over 230 related
    Web sites)


    (3) Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog (list of new


    The Acrobat file is designed for printing. The printed
    bibliography is over 155 pages long. The Acrobat file is
    over 430 KB.

    The bibliography has the following sections (revised sections are
    marked with an asterisk):

    Table of Contents

    1 Economic Issues*
    2 Electronic Books and Texts
           2.1 Case Studies and History
           2.2 General Works*
           2.3 Library Issues*
    3 Electronic Serials
           3.1 Case Studies and History
           3.2 Critiques
           3.3 Electronic Distribution of Printed Journals
           3.4 General Works*
           3.5 Library Issues*
           3.6 Research*
    4 General Works*
    5 Legal Issues
           5.1 Intellectual Property Rights*
           5.2 License Agreements
           5.3 Other Legal Issues
    6 Library Issues
           6.1 Cataloging, Identifiers, Linking, and Metadata*
           6.2 Digital Libraries*
           6.3 General Works*
           6.4 Information Integrity and Preservation*
    7 New Publishing Models*
    8 Publisher Issues
           8.1 Digital Rights Management*
    9 Repositories and E-Prints*
    Appendix A. Related Bibliographies by the Same Author
    Appendix B. About the Author*

    Scholarly Electronic Publishing Resources includes
    the following sections:

    Cataloging, Identifiers, Linking, and Metadata*
    Digital Libraries*
    Electronic Books and Texts
    Electronic Serials*
    General Electronic Publishing*
    Repositories and E-Prints*
    SGML and Related Standards*

    An article about the bibliography has been published
    in The Journal of Electronic Publishing:


    Best Regards,

    Charles W. Bailey, Jr., Assistant Dean for Systems,
    University of Houston, Library Administration,
    114 University Libraries, Houston, TX 77204-2000.
    E-mail: cbailey@uh.edu. Voice: (713) 743-9804.
    Fax: (713) 743-9811. http://info.lib.uh.edu/cwb/bailey.htm

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 02:54:52 EDT