Isidro F. Aguillo
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the presenter, not necessarily those of the CCHS or the CSIC.
repositories.webometrics.info

•
•
•
•
– Preliminary results July 2011
•
•
repositories.webometrics.info

• 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
3 repositories.webometrics.info

Activity
Size
Number of webpages, rich files, academic papers, media files, languages, age
Visibility
Impact
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
Presence
Size, geographical coverage, languages, biases, algorithms, updating frequency, operators
Mentions
Position
Presence in search engines and directories
Popularity
Names of authors, papers, institutions, journals, hot topics
Analytics (usage)
TrafficRank
4
Position
Rank in search results
Visits, visitors
Number of visits, visitors, geographical and temporal distribution
Criteria repositories.webometrics.info
Frequency, presence in selected html tags, title, URL, bad practices
Behavior
Patterns of visits, referrers, referrals

• 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
• OpenAIRE WP8
– Combining Bibliometrics, Webometrics and Analytics indicators repositories.webometrics.info
5

• 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 repositories.webometrics.info
6

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
• White Rose Consortium ePrints Repository
• University of Arizona's Campus Repository
• Paris Institute of Technology Pastel Theses http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/ http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ http://arizona.openrepository.com/ http://pastel.archives-ouvertes.fr/
• Universidad de Chile Cybertesis
• Open Access Server Woods Hole
• HAL Ecole Polytechnique http://www.cybertesis.cl/ http://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/
•
• TeesRep Teesside University
Auckland Univ Technology ScholarlyCommons http://tees.openrepository.com/ http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/
• University of Wolverhampton Digital Repository http://wlv.openrepository.com/ http://hal-polytechnique.archives-ouvertes.fr/ repositories.webometrics.info

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/ repositories.webometrics.info

repositories.webometrics.info
http://www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/2267/1/13.pdf
9

10 repositories.webometrics.info
http://dare.uva.nl/document/131441

11 http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/cmri_journalspr/48/ repositories.webometrics.info

http://doras.dcu.ie/15962/4/OPTICS-S-08-01522.pdf
repositories.webometrics.info
http://doras.dcu.ie/15962/
12

13

• 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%) repositories.webometrics.info
14

Source Operator
Google
Yahoo SE 1
Bing
Google
Yahoo
Bing site 2 filetype 2
(pdf, doc, docx, ppt, pptx, ps, eps)
Normalization Weight
20%
15%
Google
Scholar site
(al least summaries)
50% total+50%(2006-10)
Lognormalization 3
15%
Indicator
SIZE
RICH
FILES
SCHOLAR
15
Yahoo SE 1 linkdomain 50% VISIBILITY
1 Yahoo 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(a i
+1)/ln(a max
+1)

SCORE
WR log-norm z-score
QS
ARWU
HEEACT
CWTS
RANK repositories.webometrics.info
16

repositories.webometrics.info
17

repositories.webometrics.info
18

repositories.webometrics.info
19

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 repositories.webometrics.info

21
 isidro.aguillo@cchs.csic.es
 repositories.webometrics.info