Indicators for a webometric ranking of open access repositories
The Ranking Web of World Repositories (http://repositories.webometrics.info) is introduced. The objective is to promote Open access initiatives (OAI) supporting the use of repositories for scientific evaluation purposes. A set of metrics based on web presence, impact and usage is discussed. The Ranking is built on indicators obtained from web search engines following a model close to the Impact Factor one. The activity accounts for a 50% of the index, including number of pages, pdf files and items in Google Scholar database, while the visibility takes into account the external inlinks received by the repository (the other 50%). The Ranking provides the Top 300 repositories from a total of 592 worldwide, with a strong presence of US, German and British institutional repositories and the leadership of the large subject repositories. Results suggest the need to take into consideration other file formats and the usage information, an option is not feasible today.
KeywordsRepositories Open access Webometrics Indicators Visibility Usage Ranking
- Aguillo, I. F., Granadino, B., Ortega, J. L., & Prieto, J. A. (2005). What the Internet says about science. The Scientist, 19(14), 10.Google Scholar
- Antelman, K. (2004). Do Open-access articles have a greater research impact. College and Research Libraries, 65(5), 372–382.Google Scholar
- Armbruster, C. (2008). Access, usage and citation metrics: What function for digital libraries and repositories in research evaluation. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1088453.
- Brody, T. (2003). Citebase search: Autonomous citation database for e-print archives. In: Third international technical workshop and conference of the project SINN, 17–19 September 2003, Oldenburg, Germany. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10677/1/brody_sinn03_paper.pdf.
- Harnad, S. (2007). Mandates and metrics: How open repositories enable universities to manage, measure and maximise their research assets. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14990/1/openaccess.pdf.
- Harnad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine, 10(6). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06harnad.html.
- Hajjem, Ch., Harnad, S., & Gingras, Y. (2005). Ten-year cross-disciplinary comparison of the growth of open access and how it increase research citation impact. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 28(4):39–47. http://sites.computer.org/debull/A05dec/hajjem.pdf.Google Scholar
- Lawrence, S., Giles, C. L., & Bollacker, K. (1999). Digital libraries and autonomous citation indexing. IEEE Computer, 32(6), 67–71.Google Scholar
- Organ, M. K. (2006). Download statistics—What do they tell us?. The example of research online, the open access institutional repository at the University of Wollongong, Australia. D-Lib Magazine, 12(11). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/organ/organ11.html.
- Scholtz, F., & Dobratz, S. (2006). International workshop on institutional repositories and enhanced and alternative metrics of publication impact, 20–21 February, 2006, Humboldt University Berlin, Report. High Energy Physics Libraries Webzine, 13. Paper 2. http://library.cern.ch/HEPLW/13/papers/2/.
- Zimmermann, C. (2007). Academic rankings with RePEc. Working Papers 2007-36, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics. http://www.econ.uconn.edu/working/2007-36.pdf.
- Zuccala, A., Oppenheim, C., & Dhiensa, R. (2008). Managing and evaluating digital repositories. Information Research, 13(1), Paper 333. http://InformationR.net/ir/13-1/paper333.html.