39 digitized Manuscripts this week from @vaticanlibrary

Taiwan: “Dissertation Gate”

Authenticating coins of the ‘Roman emperor’ Sponsian



Sponsianus Aureus.PNG
Von Sponsianus – Pearson PN, Botticelli M, Ericsson J, Olender J, Spruženiece L (2022) Authenticating coins of the ‘Roman emperor’ Sponsian. PLoS ONE 17(11): e0274285. <a rel=”nofollow” class=”external free” href=”https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274285″>https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274285</a>, CC BY 4.0, Link

Digital Preservation of Open Access Books: insufficient

“Science policy and practice for open access (OA) books is a rapidly evolving area in the scholarly domain. However, there is much that remains unknown. Utilizing open bibliometric data sources, this study aims to answer three questions: 1) How prevalent are OA books (data sources: Directory of Open Access Books, OpenAIRE, OpenAlex, Scielo Books, The Lens, WorldCat), 2) what web domains are responsible for offering full-text access to these OA books, and 3) to what degree can OA books be verified to be archived in trusted preservation services (data sources: Cariniana Network, CLOCKSS, Global LOCKSS Network, Portico). 396 995 unique records were identified from the OA book bibliometric sources, of which 19% were found to be included in at least one of the preservation services. The results suggest reason for concern for the long tail of OA books distributed at thousands of different web domains as these include volatile cloud storage or sometimes no longer contained the files at all. Data quality issues, varying definitions of OA across services, and inconsistent implementation of unique identifiers were discovered as key challenges. […]

The main finding of the study is that, based on aggregation of data from various widely used open bibliometric databases, one can identify 396 995 OA book records, of which 19% were found to be archived by one of the four preservation service providers which open data was used for this study.”


A study on scholarly repositories’ availability


“[W]e harvested the content of four prominent scholarly registries and resolved over 13 thousand unique repository URLs. […] [T]he results show that about one out of four URLs from repository profiles in scholarly registries is problematic. Moreover, this result is a lower bound, as problems could be related to the content served after a successfully served request.”

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia joins cOAlition S

Swiss National Science Foundation joins cOAlition S

Suche in OpenEdition Search

Sie werden weitergeleitet zur OpenEdition Search