Isidro F. Aguillo

1. The July 2011 Webometrics repository ranking Isidro F. Aguillo

2. Agenda Introduction to the Cybermetrics Lab Webometrics, an emerging discipline Webometrics, OA and repositories Ranking Web Preliminary results July 2011 Final comments Open debate 2

3. Scholars making scientific research Researchers belonging to the National Research Council (CSIC) The largest Spanish research public organization Recognised by our peers 15 years experience in quantitative analysis and evaluation of scholar communication and academic institutions Papers in referred scientific journals, contributions to international conferences, reports to governmental bodies Funded by public resources International cooperation projects funded by European Commission Research Agenda Promote Open Access initiatives Global coverage, including developing countries Building Cybermetrics/Webometrics as an emerging discipline The Cybermetrics Lab

4. Webometrics Activity Impact Size Number of webpages, rich files, academic papers, media files, languages, age Visibility Number of external inlinks, Web impact factor, g-factor, PageRank Web 2.0 Social networks presence, blogmetrics, wikimetrics Networks Inter-linking, co-linking, clusters, similarity, network measurements Search Engines Size, geographical coverage, languages, biases, algorithms, updating frequency, operators Mentions Names of authors, papers, institutions, journals, hot topics Position Analytics (usage) Presence Presence in search engines and directories Popularity TrafficRank Position Rank in search results Visits, visitors Number of visits, visitors, geographical and temporal distribution Criteria Frequency, presence in selected html tags, title, URL, bad practices Behavior Patterns of visits, referrers, referrals

5. Webometrics requires public Web Direct crawling OA Electronic Journals Repositories Indirect crawling: Search engines as proxies Link analysis Mention analysis Analytics Usage from log files Google Analytics or similar OpenAIREWP8 Combining Bibliometrics, Webometrics and Analytics indicators Webometrics, OA and repositories

6. Priorities in OA initiatives Populate the repositories Obtaining mandates Applying standards Increase visibility Intellectual property issues Authors not transferring full rights to editors Participation in repositories intended for: Increasing the number of citations Improving author (and institutional) prestige But … current OA practices means some rights are being lost At the level of repository At the level of institution A few objectives and some problems

7. Research results are the most important assets of the universities, but in a few cases the repository is outside the institutional webdomain HAL Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/ White Rose ConsortiumePrintsRepository http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ University of Arizona's Campus Repository http://arizona.openrepository.com/ Paris Institute of Technology Pastel Theses http://pastel.archives-ouvertes.fr/ Universidad de Chile Cybertesis http://www.cybertesis.cl/ Open Access Server Woods Hole http://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/ TeesRep Teesside University http://tees.openrepository.com/ Auckland Univ Technology ScholarlyCommons http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/ University of Wolverhampton Digital Repository http://wlv.openrepository.com/ HAL EcolePolytechnique http://hal-polytechnique.archives-ouvertes.fr/ Transfer of “institutional” rights

8. Regarding naming Institutional repository URL should be in the institutional web domain The relevant item is the full text file not the webpage of the record It is recommended that the URL of the file includes: Institutional webdomain Last name of (main) author Explicit file type (something.pdf) Regarding linking The item URL (not the record) should be easily linkable (citable). Short, no complex or long numerical codes Nothing against purls but not as main linking target http://dx.doi.org/ http://hdl.handle.net/ A different point of view

9. Recommended URL http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/2267/1/13.pdf

10. Discrepancies in record’s numbers http://dare.uva.nl/document/131441

11. DOI recognise editor not author http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/cmri_journalspr/48/

12. Complex URLs http://doras.dcu.ie/15962/4/OPTICS-S-08-01522.pdf http://doras.dcu.ie/15962/

13. 13 Ranking Web of Repositories(July 2011)

14. Repositories with their own domain or subdomain 1,222 repositories Including 1,154 institutional repositories Plus 49 “portals” Major changes from previous editions Sources Exalead data no longer collected Yahoo Site Explorer instead of Yahoo Search Only for Size New formats added: docx, pptx, eps Total number of rich files excluded from Size count Scholar full count (50%) + Scholar 2006-2010 (50%) July 2011 edition

15. Methodology 1Yahoo is using Bing database, except for Site Explorer (SE) and a few national mirrors (till mid 2012) 2 Number of rich files excluded from the global size count 3 ln(ai+1)/ln(amax+1)

16. Log-normalization 16 SCORE WR log-norm z-score QS ARWU HEEACT CWTS RANK

17. Top Repositories

18. Top Institutional Repositories

19. Top “Portals”

20. Providers and end-users of repositories are scientists and their institutions For them papers are the most important asset they produce Granting increased access and visibility is universally acknowledged But some practices are dislodging deposited material from authorships, making difficult to cite (link) the papers and penalizing the “prestige” of the scientists and their academic employers Ranking Web of Repositories intends to promote OA initiatives and support best practices Current classification is still not reflecting the repositories diversity, but further efforts will be done in the future Methodology is also evolving, but overall results are not changing abruptly among consecutive editions Final comments

21. Thank you! Questions? • isidro.aguillo@cchs.csic.es • repositories.webometrics.info