O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.


Slides for a talk on "What Does The Evidence Tell Us About Institutional Repositories?" given by Brian Kelly, UKOLN and Jenny Delasalle, University of Warwick Library at the ILI 2012 (#ILI2012) conference held at Olympia, London on 30-31 October 2012.

  • Seja o primeiro a comentar


  1. What Does The Evidence Tell UsAbout Institutional Repositories?Jenny Delasalle – Academic Support Manager (Research) in the Library at theUniversity of Warwick.Blog: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/libresearch/ Twitter: @JennyDelasalleBrian Kelly – UK Web Focus and ISC Community Engagement Manager atUKOLN, University of Bath.Blog: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/ Twitter: @briankelly /@ukwebfocus enhancing access toBoth interested inresearch papers…See also: Can LinkedIn and Academia.edu Enhance Access to Open Repositories?Kelly, B. and Delasalle, J. Open Repositories 2012, 9-13 July 2012, Edinburgh, Scotland.http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/or12/paper-136/ JD > JD
  2. Idea from Cameron NeylonYou are free to: copy, share, adapt, or re-mix; photograph, film, or broadcast; blog, live-blog, or post video ofthis presentation provided that: You attribute the work to its author and respect the rights and licences associated with its components. Slide Concept by Cameron Neylon, who has waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights. This slide only CCZero. 2 Social Media Icons adapted with permission from originals by Christopher Ross. Original images are available under GPL at:2 http://www.thisismyurl.com/free-downloads/15-free-speech-bubble-icons-for-popular-websites
  3. What we investigated…Q Can LinkedIn and Academia.edu et al drive more traffic to papers in repositories?• We looked at researchers’ participation in “profile sites”. see: A Survey of Use of Researcher Profiling Services Across the 24 Russell Group Universities http://wp.me/p25qL-2Qc• Brian Kelly’s own papers & blog: traffic between them. see: Where Do You Go To (My Lovely)? http://wp.me/p25qL-2Zd• We looked at institutional repository visitor sources. see: SEO Analysis of WRAP, the Warwick University Repository http://wp.me/p25qL-3du3 JD > JD
  4. Put your profile online: where? • LinkedIn • Facebook • Mendeley • ResearchGate • Academia.edu • ResearcherID • University’s own pages • Amazon author pages • Claim your papers on Google Scholar • Places to link to your articles from.4 JD > JD
  5. Authors’ guidelines on publisher websites• Taylor and Francis advise the use of LinkedIn and academic social networking sites, mentioning MyNetResearch and Academici as examples…• Springer’s Author pages offer advice on using online tools and social media. They mention Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn and ResearchGate, Twitter and Wikipedia.• Sage’s “Promote your article” lists YouTube, Slideshare, Flickr and other Sage channels. Their section on “Help readers find your article” covers Search Engine Optimisation.• OUPs "Social Media Author Guidelines" cover blogs, Twitter, Facebook and Youtube, and link to OUP channels. They also list LinkedIn, Goodreads, flickr, tumblr and Quora.• Emerald’s “How to Guides” for authors include some valuable advice on disseminating your work: their “drawing attention to your book” is more useful for social media advice, though.• None of these author guidelines mention5 repository deposit, however! JD > JD
  6. Institutional repositories in the UK• See MajesticSEO Analysis of these three at: http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/6 JD > JD
  7. Analysis of WRAP• Background: – No mandate for deposit, & highly mediated deposit process – content is often picked up on researcher’s behalf.• Visitor nos.: – just over 18,000 a month in 50 months (G Analytics) – 730,304 downloads: 49.08% of which from Google or G Scholar (IR Stats)• Links from (SEO): – our Business School (wbs.ac.uk) and the Bielefeld Academic Search Engine(BASE) – Some “top” addresses also feature in G Analytics data7 JD > JD
  8. Using analysis of WRAP• Links to same domain ignored• Educational domains link to us?• Which papers are the backlinks to? 1. A research paper on the impact of cotton in poor rural households in India. 2. The WRAP homepage. 3. A PDF of an economics working paper on currency area theory. (most downloaded paper in WRAP!) 4. A PDF of an economics working paper on happiness and productivity. 5. The record for a PhD thesis on Women poets.• Information to share with authors, to encourage repository deposit? Or too fuzzy?8 JD > BK
  9. Importance of Google• Context: • Between 50-80% of traffic to IRs are from Google (may be higher if direct links to PDFs not recorded by Google Analytics) See: MajesticSEO Analysis of Russell Group University Repositories http://wp.me/p25qL-315• What provides ‘Google juice’: • On-page SEO techniques (structure, writing style, …) • Links to pages, especially from highly-ranking sites9 BK > BK
  10. WHAT DELIVERS GOOGLE JUICE? Survey of SEO ranking of 24 Russell Group IRs carried out in August 2012. Findings: • Google, YouTube, Blogspot, Wikipe dia and Microsoft are highest ranking domains with links to IRs • Blogspot.com & WordPress.com have Blogspot.com significantly larger number of links to IRs Wordpress.com • Links from institutional domain (e.g. locally- hosted blogs) provide little Google juice!10 BK > BK
  11. UK Web Focus blog has a rotating Featured11 BK > BK Paper link
  12. Most cited papers according to Google Scholar Citations Downloads (IR) Nos. Current Graph 275 169 24412 BK > BK
  13. Reasons For Paper’s PopularityPossible reasons – Quality of paper – Quality of metadata – Importance of co-authors – Provision of full-text, rather than just metadata – Formats used (HTML as well as PDFs) – Role of social media – Other suggestions?13 BK > BK
  14. SEO or SMOSEO: Helping Google find your papers through: • Writing style, document structure, … • In-bound linksSMO: Helping other people find your papers through: • Viral marketing • Engaging with one’s peers • Sharing on social media servicesSMO: Good for new papers, but not relevant for popular papers written from 2004-8SEO: Document structure consistent. Difference BK > appears to be significant nos. of in-bound links JD
  15. Researchers can• Look at metrics for their papers: which are most downloaded and when.• Investigate social media tools & communities to promote their work.• Learn which practices drive traffic and citations: prioritise.• Generate in-bound links to their papers: light weight.• Understand the networks where they can participate: prioritise.15 JD > JD
  16. We should use this evidence to:• Advise researchers on: – how to monitor attention for their work (impact within and beyond academia) – Key social media channels to trial for themselves – Apply SEO tips to repositories• Advise HE funders on how OA is & could be working.• Consider what we need to make repositories successful: be open ourselves and share our findings with each other. – (As recommended by R. David Lankes in ILI 2012 Keynote!)16 JD > JD
  17. QuestionsAny questions or comments? 17