Jonathan Rochkind writes
> I still think that the best way to provide open access to your
> records is to provide it to anyone, including for-pay
> aggregators. Like EBSCO, for instance; I assume RePEc also does not
> allow EBSCO to harvest your records, if you're opposed to them being
> included in for-pay aggregators in principle? I still think we are
> collectively served best when anyone who wants to can harvest our
> metadata.
That tends to be my view too. But RePEc has other concerns. RePEc
services log usage to a common usage reporting service
LogEc. Authors receive notification about how much their items are
used across RePEc services. It's an elaborate system. There is a
battery of author rankings calculated using that data. Authors pay
close attention to these and make sure that their records are
complete and that their documents get submitted. Making records
available to services that don't report to LogEc means a reduction
in accuracy of LogEc data.
Without similar features, institutional repositories will not fill.
I wanted to give a talk about all of this at the last sparc ir
conference but was turned down by the organizers.
Cheers,
Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel
RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
skype: thomaskrichel
Received on Sun Sep 20 2009 - 11:01:42 EDT