Title: IncReASe: Final Report
Page: 12-13, 21
Date Released: 30 April 2009
URI for Output: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/increase/increase_finalreportv1.pdf
Summary of contents:
The project looked at importing from departmental bibliographic databases and from other departmental bibliographic collections (some of which where created explicitly for this purpose).
“It is interesting to note that the department preferred on balance to create their own local database and upload material en masse at the end of the summer. Similar suggestions have been made from time to time by other departments even though creating an additional collection system involves more work at the local level. For example, we have been asked to provide an Excel template to allow data to be collected ready for periodic bulk import into the repository.Though this approach may seem counterintuitive, local academics and administrators have suggested that, for some departments, this [local collection] may be a more sustainable method of data collection. Such solutions may be worth considering, perhaps as an interim measure, where sustained self-archiving activity is proving particularly elusive – though could prove counterproductive overall.”
It is also of note a number of departments already had their own bibliographic management tools. Some of which could export in formats that are directly importable into ePrints via plugins (DOI, EndNote, BibTex, Multiline Excel and PubMed ID). more detaisl on the use of the plugions ar available: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/increase/plugins.html [page 18 notes that one difficulty with using DOI material from crossref is the lack of author data as a result “We have used CrossRef as a base source of metadata but not to enhance metadata in records already created within the repository.”]
The project notes that some of the desire to use other tools maybe be sidestepped by future developments that better integrate repository deposit into researcher’s workflows and by the introduction of research information/ management systems.
From the conlcusions
“There are likely to be personal and departmental sources of metadata suitable for bulk import at most /all HEIs. The metadata within such systems may well be inconsistent and incomplete. We found import to be more time-consuming than we hoped. A high degree of manual intervention was required: mainly to supplement incomplete metadata or add full publication details to imported “in press” items. Unless effective ways can be found to automatically check and improve bulk metadata this type of import may be a false economy and may not be the best way to grow the repository sustainably nor to embed into researchers’ workflow. An alternative approach would be to identify sources of pre-quality checked metadata – possibly from commercial sources – to create a back-catalogue of publication metadata.”
Comments:
There is again a highlighted concern about alternative solutions impacting on the adoption of self-archiving.
[I think] The project’s experience that departments may opt to run their own bibliographic systems is an important reminder that there is not one solution to either archiving Open Access copies and that information in one place does not equate to information in one system.
It demonstrates the effective use of a number of plugins around the e-prints software to successfully import data.
Filed under: Content Type - Articles, Improved institutional infrastructure, IncReASe, Information in single place, Level - Institutional, Output - User requirements / feedback | Comments Off on Output – IncReASe: Final Report – bulk import
You must be logged in to post a comment.