Open Science ETDs and Institutional Repositories: Making Research Data FAIRer
Journal of Electronic Theses and Dissertations, Vol: 2, Issue: 1
2023
- 497Usage
- 5Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage497
- Downloads307
- Abstract Views190
- Captures5
- Readers5
Article Description
Graduate students, as potential future full-time researchers, are a population that should show proficiency in data sharing. Though there are many resources that teach data sharing best practices for students, it is difficult to tell how well students do when sharing their data. We compared the FAIRness of non-traditional research output metadata associated with theses and dissertations for records shared in a generalist repository by individual students, and records shared through an institutional repository using the same repository platform. Those shared in an institutional repository were significantly FAIRer, as measured by metadata richness and interoperability, and had higher views per month. The only measure where records shared by students exceed institutional records is listing funding sources. We also examine how multiple related research outputs are grouped and offer suggestions to improve interoperability. We conclude that our sample population of graduate students sharing research outputs are not yet proficient in applying the FAIR principles. The review process and oversight that are often part of institutional repositories can offer a measurable benefit to non-traditional ETD outputs.
Bibliographic Details
Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know