Reading PAGE

Peer Evaluation activity

Trusted by 1
Emailed by 1
Downloads 10
Views 34
Full text requests 1
Followed by 3

Total impact ?

    Send a

    Laurent has...

    Trusted 0
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 0

     

    This was brought to you by:

    block this user Laurent Romary Trusted member

    Senior Research Fellow

    Inria

    D2 . 2 Final report on the provision of usage data and manuscript deposit procedures for publishers and repository managers

    Export to Mendeley

    The Draft report on the provision of usage data and manuscript deposit procedures for publishers and repository managers, deliverable 2.1, set out to establish a workflow for depositing stage-2 outputs in and harvesting log files from repositories to enable the research envisaged in the PEER project. As that report preceded the tendering process whereby the respective research teams were selected, a number of issues were flagged for attention, particularly of the Usage research team, in WP5 and have since been referred for consultation. A significant outcome of the previous draft report was the recommendation to establish the PEER Depot as a closed intermediary repository, to receive publisher deposit in the form of both 50% of the full-text outputs, as well as 100% of the metadata outputs; and to serve as a base line control for the research process. The PEER Depot has since been established, and has come to play a significant role in the workflow developed. While the draft report set out a preliminary deposit workflow from publishers to repositories, the central role of the PEER Depot has since influenced further developments in the provision of usage data and manuscript deposit procedures for both publishers and authors. This report is the result of an ongoing negotiation between stakeholder groups comprising publishers and the library/repository community to establish best practice in deposit procedures that are least disruptive of existing publication workflows, while minimizing additional effort in repository ingest activities.

    Oh la laClose

    Your session has expired but don’t worry, your message
    has been saved.Please log in and we’ll bring you back
    to this page. You’ll just need to click “Send”.

    Your evaluation is of great value to our authors and readers. Many thanks for your time.

    Review Close

    Short review
    Select a comment
    Select a grade
    You and the author
    Anonymity My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
    publish
    Close

    When you're done, click "publish"

    Only blue fields are mandatory.

    Relation to the author*
    Overall Comment*
    Anonymity* My review is anonymous( Log in  or  Register )
     

    Focus & Objectives*

    Have the objectives and the central topic been clearly introduced?

    Novelty & Originality*

    Do you consider this work to be an interesting contribution to knowledge?

    Arrangement, Transition and Logic

    Are the different sections of this work well arranged and distributed?

    Methodology & Results

    Is the author's methodology relevant to both the objectives and the results?

    Data Settings & Figures

    Were tables and figures appropriate and well conceived?

    References and bibliography

    Is this work well documented and has the bibliography been properly established?

    Writing

    Is this work well written, checked and edited?

    Write Your Review (you can paste text as well)
    Please be civil and constructive. Thank you.


    Grade (optional, N/A by default)

    N/A 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
    Close

    Your mailing list is currently empty.
    It will build up as you send messages
    and links to your peers.

     No one besides you has access to this list.
    Close
    Enter the e-mail addresses of your recipients in the box below.  Note: Peer Evaluation will NOT store these email addresses   log in
    Your recipients

    Your message:

    Your email : Your email address will not be stored or shared with others.

    Your message has been sent.

    Description

    Title : D2 . 2 Final report on the provision of usage data and manuscript deposit procedures for publishers and repository managers
    Author(s) : Barbara Bayer-Schur, Foudil Brétel, Natasa Bulatovic, Gabriella Harangi, Wolfram Horstmann, Friederike Kleinfercher, Rianne Koning, Vilius Kučiukas, Marianna Mühlhölzer, Dale Peters, Laurent Romary, Jochen Schirrwagen, Maurice Vanderfeesten
    Abstract : The Draft report on the provision of usage data and manuscript deposit procedures for publishers and repository managers, deliverable 2.1, set out to establish a workflow for depositing stage-2 outputs in and harvesting log files from repositories to enable the research envisaged in the PEER project. As that report preceded the tendering process whereby the respective research teams were selected, a number of issues were flagged for attention, particularly of the Usage research team, in WP5 and have since been referred for consultation. A significant outcome of the previous draft report was the recommendation to establish the PEER Depot as a closed intermediary repository, to receive publisher deposit in the form of both 50% of the full-text outputs, as well as 100% of the metadata outputs; and to serve as a base line control for the research process. The PEER Depot has since been established, and has come to play a significant role in the workflow developed. While the draft report set out a preliminary deposit workflow from publishers to repositories, the central role of the PEER Depot has since influenced further developments in the provision of usage data and manuscript deposit procedures for both publishers and authors. This report is the result of an ongoing negotiation between stakeholder groups comprising publishers and the library/repository community to establish best practice in deposit procedures that are least disruptive of existing publication workflows, while minimizing additional effort in repository ingest activities.
    Keywords : peer, ir, deposit

    Subject : unspecified
    Area : Other
    Language : English
    Year : 2009

    Affiliations Inria
    Pages : 1-75
    Url : http://www.peerproject.eu/reports/

    Leave a comment

    This contribution has not been reviewed yet. review?

    You may receive the Trusted member label after :

    • Reviewing 10 uploads, whatever the media type.
    • Being trusted by 10 peers.
    • If you are blocked by 10 peers the "Trust label" will be suspended from your page. We encourage you to contact the administrator to contest the suspension.

    Does this seem fair to you? Please make your suggestions.

    Please select an affiliation to sign your evaluation:

    Cancel Evaluation Save

    Please select an affiliation:

    Cancel   Save

    Laurent's Peer Evaluation activity

    Trusted by 1
    Emailed by 1
    • Anonymous : 1
    Downloads 10
    Views 34
    Full text requests 1

    Title of the work: Combing Over the Polycomb Group Proteins

    • Anonymous (1)
    Followed by 3

    Laurent has...

    Trusted 0
    Reviewed 0
    Emailed 0
    Shared/re-used 0
    Discussed 0
    Invited 0
    Collected 0
    Invite this peer to...
    Title
    Start date (dd/mm/aaaa)
    Location
    URL
    Message
    send
    Close

    Full Text request

    Your request will be sent.

    Please enter your email address to be notified
    when this article becomes available

    Your email


     
    Your email address will not be shared or spammed.