|
|
|
| Research on the Metadata of Scholar Identity Management Systems |
| Si Li, Chen Chen |
| School of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Research on metadata in different identity management systems can help in the understanding of functional goals and differences of each system, build effective identity management and metadata enhancement strategies, and achieve the goal of data sharing and reuse in the field of identity management. This study uses 100 Chinese scholars as a survey sample to analyze its identification in the five identity management systems: Chinese Name Authority Joint Database Search System, Baidu Scholar, ORCID, ScopusID, and Publons. It also measures and analyzes differences in the metadata structure and elements value, combined with the methods of word frequency statistics, co-occurrence analysis, and principal components analysis. The study finds that scholars present different identification and co-occurrence characteristics in different types of identity management systems; the distribution of elements within the same system is not balanced, and the metadata structure between different systems also differs. The metadata element of each system does not always have strong correlation and presents two distinct groups of components. Moreover, the contribution rate of each system element to each group of information is not consistent.
|
|
Received: 05 December 2019
|
|
|
|
1 Smith-Yoshimura K, Altman M, Conlon M, et al. Registering researchers in authority files[R]. Dublin: OCLC Research, 2014: 1-29.
2 Wu S H, Stvilia B, Lee D J. Readers, personal record managers, and community members: an exploratory study of researchers’ participation in online research information management systems[J]. Journal of Library Metadata, 2017, 17(2): 57-90.
3 Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF), the British Library (BL). A global strategy for authority metadata and identifiers: Lessons learnt from VIAF and ISNI and how to build a sustainable future[EB/OL]. [2019-11-26]. https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/PoCo-2016/VIAF-ISNI-position-paper.pdf.
4 Stvilia B, Wu S H, Lee D J. A framework for researcher participation in Research Information Management Systems[J]. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 2019, 45(3): 195-202.
5 Waugh L, Tarver H, Edward Phillips M. Introducing name authority into an ETD collection[J]. Library Management, 2014, 35(4/5): 271-283.
6 Panigabutra-Roberts A. Researcher identity management in the 21st Century networked world: A pilot study of American University in Cairo Faculty[EB/OL]. [2019-09-10]. http://swib.org/swib15/ slides/panigabutra_researchers.pdf.
7 Sandberg J, Jin Q. How should catalogers provide authority control for journal article authors? Name identifiers in the linked data world[J]. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 2016, 54(8): 537-552.
8 Tran C Y, Lyon J A. Faculty use of author identifiers and researcher networking tools[J]. College & Research Libraries, 2017, 78(2): 171-182.
9 Panigabutra-Roberts A. Researchers identifiers, metadata and scholarly communication in the linked data[EB/OL]. [2019-09-04]. https://www.open-science-conference.eu/archive/open-science-con ference-2018/call/.
10 Ortega J L. Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC's members[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2015, 9(1): 39-49.
11 Lee D J, Stvilia B, Wu S H. Towards a metadata model for research information management systems[J]. Library Hi Tech, 2020, 38(3): 577-592.
12 Stvilia B, Gasser L. Value-based metadata quality assessment[J]. Library & Information Science Research, 2008, 30(1): 67-74.
13 PCC Task Groups. PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloging) strategic directions January 2018-December 2021[EB/OL]. [2019-11-26]. https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/about/PCC-Strategic-Directions-2018-2021.pdf.
14 Angjeli A, Mac Ewan A, Boulet V. ISNI and VIAF—Transforming ways of trustfully consolidating identities[EB/OL]. [2019-11-28]. http://library.ifla.org/985/1/086-angjeli-en.pdf.
15 Bilder G. Disambiguation without de-duplication: Modeling authority and trust in the ORCID system[EB/OL]. [2019-09-16]. https://www.crossref.org/wp/labs/whitepapers/disambiguation-deduplication-wp-v4.pdf.
16 NACO, Authority Control, and Identity Management: evolving strategies for a changing name authorities landscape[EB/OL]. (2017-12-06)[2019-09-11]. http://downloads.alcts.ala.org/ce/20171206_NACO_Authority_Control_Identity_Management_Slides.pdf.
17 Shi Y Q, Jia J Z. Use and presentation of personal name components in Chinese authority files[J]. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 2018, 44(4): 477-485.
18 Supplementary charge to the PCC TG on identity management in NACO[EB/OL]. (2017-10-18) [2019-09-10]. https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/documents/Facil-Session-2017/Advice%20for%202018-2021%20PCC%20Strategic%20Directions%20Document_.pdf.
19 Ilik V. Why not share?[EB/OL]. [2019-09-09]. https://ilikvioleta.blogspot.com/2017/08/why-not-share.html?zx=c53551c1c27a4a12.
20 Mu?oz-Pinedo C. Chinese reviewers: sign up for unique IDs, please[J]. Nature, 2019, 565(7738): 161.
21 PCC Task Groups.Charge for PCC task group on identity management in NACO[EB/OL]. [2019-09-01]. https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/taskgroup/PCC-TG-Identity-Manageme.
22 Salo D. Name authority control in institutional repositories[J]. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 2009, 47(3/4): 249-261. |
|
|
|
