Post on 10-Dec-2015
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the presenter, not necessarily those of the CCHS or the CSIC.
repositories.webometrics.info
The July 2011 Webometrics repository rankingIsidro F. Aguillo
repositories.webometrics.info
22Agenda
• Introduction to the Cybermetrics Lab
• Webometrics, an emerging discipline
• Webometrics, OA and repositories
• Ranking Web– Preliminary results July 2011
• Final comments
• Open debate
repositories.webometrics.info
• Scholars making scientific research
– Researchers belonging to the National Research Council (CSIC)– The largest Spanish research public organization
– Recognised by our peers– 15 years experience in quantitative analysis and evaluation of scholar communication and
academic institutions
– Papers in referred scientific journals, contributions to international conferences, reports to
governmental bodies
– Funded by public resources– International cooperation projects funded by European Commission
• Research Agenda
– Promote Open Access initiatives
– Global coverage, including developing countries
– Building Cybermetrics/Webometrics as an emerging discipline
3The Cybermetrics Lab
repositories.webometrics.info
Number of external inlinks, Web impact factor, g-factor, PageRank
Inter-linking, co-linking, clusters, similarity, network measurements
Names of authors, papers, institutions, journals, hot topics
Size, geographical coverage, languages, biases, algorithms, updating frequency, operators
Number of webpages, rich files, academic papers, media files, languages, age
Social networks presence, blogmetrics, wikimetrics
Search Engines
Size
Web 2.0
Visibility
Networks
Mentions
Activity Impact
TrafficRank
Patterns of visits, referrers, referrals
Number of visits, visitors, geographical and temporal distribution
Frequency, presence in selected html tags, title, URL, bad practices
Presence in search engines and directories
Rank in search results
Criteria
Presence
Position
Popularity
Behavior
Visits, visitors
Position Analytics (usage)
4Webometrics
repositories.webometrics.info
• Webometrics requires public Web
– Direct crawling– OA Electronic Journals
– Repositories
– Indirect crawling: Search engines as proxies– Link analysis
– Mention analysis
• Analytics
– Usage
– from log files
– Google Analytics or similar
• OpenAIRE WP8
– Combining Bibliometrics, Webometrics and Analytics indicators
5Webometrics, OA and repositories
repositories.webometrics.info
• Priorities in OA initiatives
– Populate the repositories
– Obtaining mandates
– Applying standards
– Increase visibility
• Intellectual property issues
– Authors not transferring full rights to editors
– Participation in repositories intended for:
– Increasing the number of citations
– Improving author (and institutional) prestige
– But … current OA practices means some rights are being lost
– At the level of repository
– At the level of institution
6A few objectives and some problems
repositories.webometrics.info
• Research results are the most important assets of the universities, but in a few cases the repository is
outside the institutional webdomain
• HAL Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/
• White Rose Consortium ePrints Repository http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/
• University of Arizona's Campus Repository http://arizona.openrepository.com/
• Paris Institute of Technology Pastel Theses http://pastel.archives-ouvertes.fr/
• Universidad de Chile Cybertesis http://www.cybertesis.cl/
• Open Access Server Woods Hole http://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/
• TeesRep Teesside University http://tees.openrepository.com/
• Auckland Univ Technology ScholarlyCommons http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/
• University of Wolverhampton Digital Repository http://wlv.openrepository.com/
• HAL Ecole Polytechnique http://hal-polytechnique.archives-ouvertes.fr/
•
7Transfer of “institutional” rights
repositories.webometrics.info
• Regarding naming
– Institutional repository URL should be in the institutional web domain
– The relevant item is the full text file not the webpage of the record
– It is recommended that the URL of the file includes:
– Institutional webdomain
– Last name of (main) author
– Explicit file type (something.pdf)
• Regarding linking
– The item URL (not the record) should be easily linkable (citable). Short, no complex
or long numerical codes
– Nothing against purls but not as main linking target
– http://dx.doi.org/
– http://hdl.handle.net/
8A different point of view
repositories.webometrics.info
9
http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/2267/1/13.pdf
Recommended URL
repositories.webometrics.info
10
http://dare.uva.nl/document/131441
Discrepancies in record’s numbers
repositories.webometrics.info
11DOI recognise editor not author
http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/cmri_journalspr/48/
repositories.webometrics.info
12Complex URLs
http://doras.dcu.ie/15962/
http://doras.dcu.ie/15962/4/OPTICS-S-08-01522.pdf
repositories.webometrics.info
• Repositories with their own domain or subdomain
– 1,222 repositories
– Including 1,154 institutional repositories
– Plus 49 “portals”
• Major changes from previous editions
– Sources
– Exalead data no longer collected
– Yahoo Site Explorer instead of Yahoo Search
– Only for Size
– New formats added: docx, pptx, eps
– Total number of rich files excluded from Size count
– Scholar full count (50%) + Scholar 2006-2010 (50%)
14July 2011 edition
repositories.webometrics.info repositories.webometrics.info
Source Operator Normalization Weight Indicator
GoogleYahoo SE1
Bingsite2
Log-normalization3
20% SIZE
GoogleYahooBing
filetype2
(pdf, doc, docx, ppt, pptx, ps, eps)
15%RICH FILES
GoogleScholar
site(al least summaries)
50% total+50%(2006-10)15% SCHOLAR
Yahoo SE1 linkdomain 50% VISIBILITY
1 Yahoo is using Bing database, except for Site Explorer (SE) and a few national mirrors (till mid 2012)2 Number of rich files excluded from the global size count3 ln(ai+1)/ln(amax+1)
Methodology 15
repositories.webometrics.info
SCORE
RANK
WR
QS
CWTS
ARWUHEEACT
log-norm
z-score
Log-normalization 16
repositories.webometrics.info
• Providers and end-users of repositories are scientists and their
institutions
– For them papers are the most important asset they produce
– Granting increased access and visibility is universally acknowledged
– But some practices are dislodging deposited material from authorships, making
difficult to cite (link) the papers and penalizing the “prestige” of the scientists and
their academic employers
• Ranking Web of Repositories intends to promote OA initiatives and
support best practices
– Current classification is still not reflecting the repositories diversity, but further
efforts will be done in the future
– Methodology is also evolving, but overall results are not changing abruptly among
consecutive editions
20Final comments