Scientometrics

, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp 477–486 | Cite as

Indicators for a webometric ranking of open access repositories

  • Isidro F. Aguillo
  • José L. Ortega
  • Mario Fernández
  • Ana M. Utrilla
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Repositories Open access Webometrics Indicators Visibility Usage Ranking 

References

  1. 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
  2. Aguillo, I. F., Granadino, B., Ortega, J. L., & Prieto, J. A. (2006). Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetric indicators. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1296–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., & Fernández, M. (2008). Webometric ranking of world universities: Introduction, methodology, and future developments. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2–3), 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antelman, K. (2004). Do Open-access articles have a greater research impact. College and Research Libraries, 65(5), 372–382.Google Scholar
  5. 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.
  6. Barjak, F. (2006). The role of the Internet in informal scholarly communication: Research Articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1350–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barjak, F., Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Which factors explain the Web impact of scientists’ personal homepages? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 200–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.
  9. Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of Open access articles. PLOS Biology, 4(5), e157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. Kim, Y. H., & Kim, H. H. (2008). Development and validation of evaluation indicators for a consortium of institutional repositories: A case study of dCollection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(8), 1282–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2006). Motivations for URL citations to open access library and information science articles. Scientometrics, 68(3), 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C., Denmleitner, M., Henneken, E., et al. (2005). The effect of use and access on citations. Information Processing and Management, 41, 1395–1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lawrence, S., Giles, C. L., & Bollacker, K. (1999). Digital libraries and autonomous citation indexing. IEEE Computer, 32(6), 67–71.Google Scholar
  18. Mayr, P. (2006). Constructing experimental indicators for Open access documents. Research Evaluation, 15(2), 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McDonald, J. D. (2007). Understanding journal usage: A statistical analysis of citation and use. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(3), 2105–2125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moed, H. F. (2007). The effect of “Open access” on citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv’s condensed matter section. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2047–2054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Norris, M., Oppenheim, Ch., & Rowland, F. (2008). The citation advantage of open access articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12), 1963–1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.
  24. 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/.
  25. Westell, M. (2006). Institutional repositories: Proposed indicators of success. Library Hi Tech, 24(2), 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wouters, P., Reddy, C., & Aguillo, I. F. (2006). On the visibility of information on the Web: an exploratory experimental approach. Research Evaluation, 15(2), 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Xia, J., & Sun, L. (2006). Factors to assess self-archiving in institutional repositories. Serials Review, 33(2), 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.
  29. 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.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isidro F. Aguillo
    • 1
  • José L. Ortega
    • 2
  • Mario Fernández
    • 1
  • Ana M. Utrilla
    • 1
  1. 1.Cybermetrics LabCCHS—CSICMadridSpain
  2. 2.Scientific Programming DivisionVICYT—CSICMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations