Poster Open Access

Most Valuable Open Access Repositories in Germany

Vierkant, Paul; Kindling, Maxi

DCAT Export

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="" xmlns:adms="" xmlns:cnt="" xmlns:dc="" xmlns:dct="" xmlns:dctype="" xmlns:dcat="" xmlns:duv="" xmlns:foaf="" xmlns:frapo="" xmlns:geo="" xmlns:gsp="" xmlns:locn="" xmlns:org="" xmlns:owl="" xmlns:prov="" xmlns:rdfs="" xmlns:schema="" xmlns:skos="" xmlns:vcard="" xmlns:wdrs="">
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="">
    <rdf:type rdf:resource=""/>
    <dct:type rdf:resource=""/>
    <dct:identifier rdf:datatype=""></dct:identifier>
    <foaf:page rdf:resource=""/>
        <rdf:type rdf:resource=""/>
        <foaf:name>Vierkant, Paul</foaf:name>
            <foaf:name>Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin</foaf:name>
        <rdf:type rdf:resource=""/>
        <foaf:name>Kindling, Maxi</foaf:name>
            <foaf:name>Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin</foaf:name>
    <dct:title>Most Valuable Open Access Repositories in Germany</dct:title>
    <dct:issued rdf:datatype="">2014</dct:issued>
    <dcat:keyword>Open Access</dcat:keyword>
    <dcat:keyword>Open Access Repository</dcat:keyword>
    <dcat:keyword>Open Access Repositories</dcat:keyword>
    <dcat:keyword>Open Access Repository Ranking</dcat:keyword>
    <dcat:keyword>Institutional Repository</dcat:keyword>
    <dcat:keyword>Disciplinary Repository</dcat:keyword>
    <dct:issued rdf:datatype="">2014-09-04</dct:issued>
    <owl:sameAs rdf:resource=""/>
        <skos:notation rdf:datatype=""></skos:notation>
    <dct:relation rdf:resource=""/>
    <dct:relation rdf:resource=""/>
    <dct:isPartOf rdf:resource=""/>
    <dct:isPartOf rdf:resource=""/>
    <dct:isPartOf rdf:resource=""/>
    <dct:description>&lt;p&gt;What makes a good open access publication repository next to the scientific quality and impact of its content? The assumption that lies behind the metric of this ranking (see criteria and scores in the right column) is that the quality of an open access repository is the sum of its characteristics, services and commitments being of value to the user, (harvesting) service providers and the open access movement as a whole. Based on 2014 Census of Open Access Repositories in Germany, Austria and Switzerland [1] data that has been categorized for this ranking into General Information, Usability, Value-added Services, Metadata, Interoperability and Community. The metric is a first sketch that tries to take up the challenge of finding a proper definition of what is a high quality open access repository. This metric is not meant to be a final metric and needs future iterations based on the feedback of the repository manager community. The development of such an open metric together with the community is openness and transparency at its best.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The upcoming project Open Access Repository Ranking [2] will present what is visualized on this poster in a continious way. The idea of this ranking is to provide the community with an overview of what is best practice and how this can be achieved. The incentives to improve a service by taking up small steps eventually will lead to an overall improvement of the open access repository landscape.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;[1] For the research data of the 2014 Census see:&amp;nbsp;;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;[2]&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; For the ranking metric see:;/p&gt;</dct:description>
    <dct:description xml:lang=""></dct:description>
    <dct:accessRights rdf:resource=""/>
      <dct:RightsStatement rdf:about="info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess">
        <rdfs:label>Open Access</rdfs:label>
          <dct:RightsStatement rdf:about="">
            <rdfs:label>Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</rdfs:label>
        <dcat:accessURL rdf:resource=""/>
All versions This version
Views 511511
Downloads 6767
Data volume 76.6 MB76.6 MB
Unique views 500500
Unique downloads 6565


Cite as