Atanu,
Ah! The challenge of avoiding link rot. One problem we find
when
we do post full text in multiple places is that we lose
sight of
the total number of downloads. We (and our funders) like to
know
the impact our publications have and measuring downloads is
one
way of gauging impact. Even if we can get reports on
downloads
etc (which Repec does well) it is often difficult to sum
metrics
from different platforms. Our preference, therefore, is to
host
our full text in one place and push the metadata around to
maximize visibility. We are using DOIs as our linking system
in
an attempt to prevent link rot. There are other benefits to
hosting full text ourselves - we can develop added-value
services, such as onward links using the CrossRef system,
which
might not be possible from all platforms.
Toby
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l lists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Atanu Garai
Sent: 29 April, 2008 12:39 AM
To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Submission in repositories by people other than
authors
Thomas Krichel wrote:
> Toby.GREENoecd.org writes
>
>> As you probably know, Repec is to economists what
ArXiv is to
>> physicists. Repec invites authors to post content,
but it is
>> also happy to have the institution do the posting
on behalf of
>> authors.
>
> RePEc is not a publisher, but a library, based on on
> aggregation of over 800 publishers called RePEc
archives. So
> it's at a higher level than arXiv.
Toby, Thomas:
Thanks for these replies. However, we are working closely to
the
model that RePec is following except that we are keen to
have the
full text of the document in our database (for various
reasons).
One reason is that is you try to download/ open links URLs/
files, many of them are returning with problem loading page/
550
failed to change directory
(http:
//ideas.repec.org/p/rjr/wpmems/071505.html) messages.
This
is quite normal when we have a distributed database and
metadata
is harvested and/or collected.
Atanu Garai
Globethics.net
|
