Stevan Harnad writes
> (2) The University Eprint Archive as a means of providing open access
> to all of the university's peer-reviewed research output (before and
> after peer review). Almost without exception, this is the work that
> also appears in the peer-reviewed journals sooner or later (indeed,
> that is how it gets peer-reviewed).
>
> It should be clear that (2) is a very special subset of (1). But
> it should be equally clear that that special subset does not have any
> particular or pressing classification problem!
I beg to differ. Scholars are subject to herd behavior. You will not
get scholars to deposit papers in the local archive if their colleagues
in other universities don't do it. Thus you have to approach
scholars by community. To do that, you need to classify the
mateiral that you have per discipline, in order to build
discipline-specific aggregators, such as the (pioneering)
RePEc project for economics.
> can beat google-style boolean search on an inverted full-text index,
> especially if aided by citation-frequency, hit-based, recency-based,
> or relevance-based ranking of search output, as done, for example,
> by http://citebase.eprints.org/help/index.php ).
Yes but all those services require discipline based,
relational dataset to be precise.
Cheers,
Thomas Krichel mailto:krichel_at_openlib.org
http://openlib.org/home/krichel
RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
_______________________________________________
OAI-eprints mailing list
OAI-eprints_at_lists.openlib.org
http://lists.openlib.org/mailman/listinfo/oai-eprints
Received on Mon Nov 25 2002 - 01:09:21 GMT