Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Transforming the Quality of Metadata in Institutional Repositories


Published on

Established in 2005, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries manages one of the largest and most-used institutional repositories in the country. It has approximately 95,000 unique items. There have been nearly 45 million full-text downloads of the works. It is powered by bepress. The staff consists of three faculty and one managerial-professional staff member. The repository hosts original journals, including: Library Philosophy and Practice, Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, Manter: Journal of Parasite Biodiversity, RURALS: Review of Undergraduate Research in Agricultural and Life Sciences, SANE journal: Sequential Art Narrative in Education, and Contemporary Issues in Educational Leadership. The IR also hosts backlists or online sites for: Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, Honors in Practice, Insecta Mundi, Great Plains Quarterly, Great Plains Research, Textile Society of America Symposium Proceedings, Nebraska Law Review, Nebraska Bird Review, Nebraska Anthropologist, Cornhusker Economics, and Business in Nebraska. The Zea Books, the repositories imprint, has published monographs in areas of reference, bibliography, ornithology, modern European history, zoology, botany, art history, music history, Native American studies, and early childhood and language education. More than fifty Zea Books titles have appeared since 2006.

This presentation will cover the workflows that have been established for managing the identities (authority control) of journal authors, adding ORCIDs for authors and working on the quality of metadata in the institutional repository. It will explore the limitations of attempting to manage the identities of authors in an IR (i.e., the metadata template is limited, e.g., no cross references, no dates or qualifiers for names) . It will look at how users access the materials in the repository and why some may question if working on metadata quality is really necessary or sustainable in an IR. Finally, it will discuss the plan to create Nebraska Scholarly Commons, a repository for all four University of Nebraska campuses, and the possible impact on metadata.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Transforming the Quality of Metadata in Institutional Repositories

  1. 1. Transforming the Quality of Metadata in Institutional Repositories Margaret (Meg) Mering Metadata Quality Librarian Scholarly Communications University of Nebraska—Lincoln Libraries June 9, 2018
  2. 2. Focus  Background information  UNL metadata practices  Personal Names  ORCID iDs  Sample of metadata issues  Priorities? What is sustainable?  Future plans
  3. 3. Content  Includes Materials from colleges, departments, academic centers, conferences in all disciplines Dissertations, theses, book chapters, journal articles, etc.  Hosts currently published journals and backfiles of journals  Zea Books, the repository’s imprint, has published 65 books since 2006
  4. 4. Google Analytics: Access to papers:* 1. Google (57.28%) 2. UNL’s Digital Commons (16.64%) 3. Google Scholar (5.27%) 4. Bing (1.92%) 5. Yahoo (.99%) 126. Encore, discovery tool (.01%) * 01/01/2018-05/29/2018
  5. 5. Staffing  Reports to the Systems Librarian  As does Image and Dataset Repository Personnel  Not part of the Technical Services Department  3 faculty members  1 managerial professional staff member  Part time staff member assists with metadata maintenance  40 hours a week of student help
  6. 6. Metadata practices
  7. 7. Names  Transcribed as they appears on the piece  Cannot disambiguate authors with the same name by recording year of birth, year of death, occupation, and field of activity.  No system supplied identifiers for individual names
  8. 8. Sample of Metadata Issues
  9. 9. Punctuation is not ignored
  10. 10. Searching without hyphen
  11. 11. Capitalization is not ignored
  12. 12. The first part of a Compound surnames is not part of the middle name
  13. 13. Changes in last name (Irmak became Kilic)
  14. 14. Second Character of Chinese Authors’ first names treated as middle name
  15. 15. Placement of prefixes to surnames
  16. 16. First and middle names not in correct order (David J. vs. J. David)
  17. 17. Misspellings of Names (Ric vs. Rick)
  18. 18. Titles used as part of names (e.g. Dr., Prof., Ms)
  19. 19. Jr., Sr., III added to last name instead of Suffix
  20. 20. Lack of uniformity for institution names  University of Nebraska-Lincoln  University of Nebraska at Lincoln  University of Nebraska  UNL  Univ. of Neb. Lincoln  UNebraska Lincoln  Lincoln
  21. 21. Author’s job title is listed instead of Institution.
  22. 22. Author’s rank, degree and institution are listed.
  23. 23. Author’s institution includes mailing address
  24. 24. Multiple email addresses
  25. 25. ORCID iDs
  26. 26. ORCID iDs  Non-profit organization supported by membership fees  Free of charge  Researchers  Create & maintain own profiles  control the privacy settings of their ORCID records  Automatic exchange of information between Scopus, ResearchIDs and ORCID
  27. 27. ORCID iDs  Advocating for graduate students and faculty register for ORCID ids  Provides an ID that uniquely and persistently identifies researcher  Only have a student email address  No email address  Further distinguish like names
  28. 28. Billesbach, David P.
  29. 29. Department Faculty VIAF ORCID Food Sciences 26 8 18 History 39 31 1 Physics 25 13 20 CYAF 24 7 10 UNL Faculty by Discipline
  30. 30. What should the priorities be? What is sustainable? What is worthwhile?  Priorities given to:  UNL researchers  Scope Creep (faculty, post docs, staff, former students …..)  Science publications  Last five years of publications  Batch edits over Manual edits  Expectations of student workers  Proactive with maintenance  Implications for future. Big picture.
  31. 31. What are the possible impacts of future plans?
  32. 32. Metadata Application Profile  Metadata specifications for a particular application or metadata service  Communication expectations for metadata  Creating a MAP for all of the repositories at UNL Libraries
  33. 33. UNCL  University of Nebraska Consortium of Libraries  Includes University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Omaha and Kearney and Medical Center  Increased cooperation in library operations  RFP for new ILS recently sent out
  34. 34.