Lietuvos akademinių bibliotekų tinklas

2011 m. December 16 d.

OpenAIREplus

2011 m. gruodžio 1 d. prasidėjo 7 BP projektas OpenAIREplus (2-osios kartos OpenAIRE – Europos mokslinių ty­ri­mų atvirosios prieigos infrastruktūra). Projekto tikslas – susieti Europos Komisijos lėšomis finansuojamų pro­jek­tų moks­li­nes publikacijas su mokslinių tyrimų duomenimis ir jų rinkiniais, tuo pačiu sukuriant prielaidas išplėstinių pub­li­ka­ci­jų (angl. enhanced publications) atsiradimui. Pro­jek­to partneriai – 41 Europos šalis, trukmė – 30 mėn. Projekto partneris – Kauno technologijos universitetas. Visose projekto partnerių atstovaujamose šalyse įkurti pagalbos ir informavimo centrai. Plačiau...

OpenAIRE yra svarbus LABIIMSPP konsorciumui dėl atvirosios prieigos prie mokslinių tyrimų publikacijų ir duomenų. Nuo 2011 m. vidurio kon­sor­ciu­mo plėtojama eLABa yra suderinta su OpenAIRE rekomendacijomis, ir todėl eLABa įkeltos pub­li­ka­ci­jos, parengtos finansuojant 7 BP ar Eu­ro­pos mokslinių tyrimų tarybos projektų lėšomis, yra prieinamos OpenAIRE talpykloje.

Daugiau informacijos apie projektą OpenAIRE skaitykite projekto svetainėje adresu http://www.openaire.eu.


Komentarai (105)

Ryani
BION I'm imsdrpsee! Cool post!
Trisman
Wow! That's a really neat anwres!
Axel
Thanks for the excellent post!There's a lot to take in. My first qusoeitn is about the HTML/PDF ratio. Have you looked at this ratio in PLoS ONE papers? According to your plot of PLoS Bio papers, my lab's recent PLoS ONE paper would be an outlier due to the fact that my paper has 3-4 times fewer PDF downloads.My explanation for my paper is that there was a lot of casual readership relative to expert or informed readership, aka other academics. So I can understand why I'd be an outlier. After all, given the high IF of PLoS Bio, there's an incentive for other academics to read the darned paper. Whereas the floodgates have been opened at PLoS ONE, but the academic community hasn't fully bought in.Looking forward to more of these updates! http://toeuvlzwi.com [url=http://lwecfulxdu.com]lwecfulxdu[/url] [link=http://incgtgmg.com]incgtgmg[/link]
Kyaw
Fascinating, Martin!Thanks for putting that Pharma data set<a href="http://wkpymyskpba.com"> thgetoer</a>. Seems to me that Facebook popularity is consistent with a larger fraction of casual/non-expert readers.Also, it's consistent with my observation that when my paper was reviewed by Derek Lowe on his blog In the Pipeline, I got a mini-surge of HTML views (~500) coinciding with over 100 PDF downloads. In other words, the HTML/PDF ratio got much better. I assume that the readers of Lowe's blog are more informed than the average person arriving at my paper via Facebook or Twitter, and so more likely to actually take the time to read my paper. (Though I wonder how many academics actually only read papers as PDFs vs in browsers?)What happens if you track the HTML/PDF ratio of many individual papers over time? You should see spikes that correspond to swings in readership engagement levels, no?
Rosalinda
<a href="http://jfmujsottcz.com">Fidning</a> this post has solved my problem
Roxy
It's a joy to find <a href="http://wvuxjmvobg.com">somonee</a> who can think like that
Sanne
That's a slick answer to a chlealnging question
Jan
Owen,many thanks for these very usfuel comments. I'll work through them and respond in sequence:1. On the name of the application profile:I tend to agree with your comment. The slight problem is that this phase of RIOXX is much more tightly scoped to scholarly papers, where later phases are expected to encompass open access publicly funded research outputs more generally. There is ongoing work to create a workable vocab to describe this. However, your point is well taken and we will find a good way to describe this consistently.2. Free text” isn’t a recommendation:Quite so! Will amend accordingly3. DC:Date and format versus recommended interpretation.I agree this could be clearer it's not wrong as such but it needs to be more precisely expressed. I'll think about an alternative presentation4. Missing values in the M/R/OYes but as above, I need to think about this more generally.5. dc.date version of ISO 8601 and basic/extended.I'm not sure I'm ready to agree with this I need to do a little research. Two observations:* we have found different approaches in the metadata we have harvested in RepUK, and in this version of RIOXX we're trying to be permissive where this is viable. Which brings me to the second observation:* I hypothesise that most software libraries can take any of these versions of ISO 8601 and derive a date value of sufficient usfuelness for the great majority of use-cases. One for a bit of testing / discussion perhaps.6. Equivalence or otherwise of rioxxterms and uketdterms:Regarding the two rioxxterms introduced so far, I think that they can for practical purposes be considered to be equivalent to their respective uketdterms. However, I'm aware that the relationship between grant' and project' is not a simple one in every case David Shotten convinced me of this a while back. We plan to do some of this modelling in the next phase. For now, I would prefer not to make strong assertions about the relationships here, but to continue to liaise with EThOS and not introduce unnecessary obstacles for interoperability.7. The use of identifiers or strings in dc.creator and dc.contributor etc:I completely agree with you I will make this adjustment8. Is dc.audience usfuel?:Well, we asked ourselves that too! I just don't know, possibly not. It's interesting that the EThOS AP does cover this. We took the decision to mention it because it's in OAI-DC and is supplied by some repositories. I have a suspicion that it could become usfuel in future, as the RCs track their investments more and more.9. dc.source – why offer Journal Title or ISSN:I need to refer this one to my co-author, Sheridan, as I think he had a reason for this recommendation which has temporarily eluded me (sorry, it's Friday evening and all .). I agree that the M' is not clear here. Will revise. I shoudl also say that we are preparing a rationale' document for all of these decisions to be made available with the AP for those who are interested.10. dc.subject formatWill fix.11. dc.coverageThis was pretty much copied from the OpenAIRE guidelines. I think we will revisit this though your comment confirms my suspicion that this is not yet clear or defensible12. Does there need to be an element to link the research to an institution?Hmmm. It isn't a simple relationship. Possibly through dc:contributor(s). Need to consider this thanks.13. Should there be some description of how dc.creator differs to dc.contributor?Yes good suggestion will do this.Thanks again for taking the time really usfuel feedback.
Boliches
I have mixed feeling on this desgin. One the one hand, I applaud them for trying something new and pushing the boundaries with color and light. But on the other hand, I really don't think I'd want to be in a cheesy nightclub plane for very long. Maybe for short flights, but across country or out of the country yikes. It's making me claustrophobic
Atgal
Puslapiai 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 
Vardas:
El. pašto adresas: (nebūtinas)
Komentaras:
neburnok.lt
Įveskite kodą: