Authors

Kenning Arlitsch;  Jonathan Wheeler;  Minh Thi Ngoc Pham;  Nikolaus Nova Parulian

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author

No Publons users have claimed this paper.

Contributors on Publons
  • 2 reviewers
Followers on Publons
  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2020/09/14

    14-Sep-2020


    Dear Arlitsch, Kenning; Wheeler, Jonathan; Pham, Minh; Parulian, Nikolaus


    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript OIR-08-2020-0328.R1, entitled "An Analysis of Use and Performance Data Aggregated from Thirty-Five Institutional Repositories" in its current form for publication in Online Information Review. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.


    Please go to your Author Centre at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir (Manuscripts with Decisions for the submitting author or Manuscripts I have co-authored for all listed co-authors) to complete the Copyright Transfer Agreement form (CTA). We cannot publish your paper without this.


    All authors are requested to complete the form and to input their full contact details. If any of the contact information is incorrect you can update it by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen. Please note that this must be done prior to you submitting your CTA.


    If you have an ORCID please check your account details to ensure that your ORCID is validated.


    By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. As soon as your CTA is completed your manuscript will pass to Emerald’s Content Management department and be processed for EarlyCite publication. EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of a journal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will be collated into a journal issue according to the journals’ publication schedule.


    FOR OPEN ACCESS AUTHORS: Please note if you have indicated that you would like to publish your article as Open Access via Emerald’s Gold Open Access route, you are required to complete a Creative Commons Attribution Licence - CCBY 4.0 (in place of the standard copyright assignment form referenced above). You will receive a follow up email within the next 30 days with a link to the CCBY licence and information regarding payment of the Article Processing Charge. If you have indicated that you might be eligible for a prepaid APC voucher, you will also be informed at this point if a voucher is available to you (for more information on APC vouchers please see http://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships


    Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of Online Information Review, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.


    Sincerely,


    Eugeina Siapera, Kalpana Shankar
    Editor-in-Chief
    eugenia.siapera@ucd.ie, kalpana.shankar@ucd.ie

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Author Response
    2020/09/10

    Thank you for these reviews of our article submission. We have tried to address reviewer comments where we can, including the following:


    1) The high use of repositories that contain more ETD was a surprise to us, and in this we "follow the data." Nonetheless, we clarified that the IR we measured contain a variety of content.


    2) Revised several figures and tables for clarification.


    3) Tried to address a few sentences in the Methodology section that might have had awkward syntax. However, without examples we are not really sure what Reviewer 1 was referring to.


    4) Tried to clarify the uniqueness and openness of the RAMP dataset. It is not comparable to other usage data and therefore we cannot make a comparison, as Reviewer 2 requested. Also, other datasets, like IRUS-UK are not publicly available for analysis. We hope it is understood that RAMP is an attempt to show how a standardized set of IR usage data might be generated and analyzed.


    5) Tried to clarify that RAMP data can be used to confirm or deny some assumptions about IR use. For example, it has long been assumed that mobile devices are used more frequently in the Global South to access IR: RAMP data confirm this.


    Our edits are marked with Track Changes in the revised Word document.



    Cite this author response
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2020/09/07

    07-Sep-2020


    Dear Dr. Arlitsch,


    Manuscript ID OIR-08-2020-0328 entitled "An Analysis of Use and Performance Data Aggregated from Thirty-Five Institutional Repositories" which you submitted to Online Information Review, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.


    Although one of the reviewers recommended rejection, one reviewer has recommended publication, but also suggest some revisions to your manuscript (particularly on use of terminology). Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript. Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir&PHPSESSID=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."


    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision". Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.


    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.


    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.


    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).


    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.


    Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Online Information Review, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.
    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.


    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Online Information Review. I look forward to receiving your revision.


    Yours sincerely,


    Prof. Kalpana Shankar
    kalpana.shankar@ucd.ie


    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1


    Recommendation: Minor Revision


    Comments:
    An interesting and useful preliminary investigation. Please refer my specific comments to the review criteria.


    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: It is a good start.


    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: The literature review is adequate.


    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: The methodology is fully explained.


    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: The results and corresponding graphics are clearly explained. Note: I had some difficulty easily reading the names of the repositories in the figures which are graphs.


    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: The discussion is clear and does outline obvious limitations in the study, of which there are several significant ones. I am not sure that enough attention has been paid to the fact that 5 (of the 35) repositories basically house only ETDs but they account for the highest usage. I think that you need to assess how much this may have skewed your overall results.
    In reading this submission, I had erroneously assumed that the RAMP repositories being analyzed contained a basic range of scholarly outputs. After all, they are referred to as "IRs". If not, then I think you need to identify the nature of their content as part of your methodology.


    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: The paper identifies future areas for more in-depth research. Given the small number of repositories registered with RAMP, it is a bit soon to identify any major implications.


    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: The argument is clearly expressed. However, there are some syntactical English errors. I would suggest that the authors find a friendly native English speaking academic, who would be willing to assist them with improving the English expression.


    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: Yes; the authors have indicated that the dataset is in Dryad.


    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons


    Reviewer: 2


    Recommendation: Reject


    Comments:
    I think authors should compare their data with data from other harvesters, and include mor variables to discuss this matter


    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Not really. The authors analyse data retrieved from repositories registered at RAMP, mainly for US. Apply a methology for counting and use of repositories, which apart form the data source it is not a novelty


    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: There are some relevant literature which is missed, for example all materials created by COAR or about behaviour of authors regarding selfarchiving, or standarization of repositories (trustworhty repsoitories).
    In genral in the itorduction authors abuse of quotations, they could express with their own words and put the reference


    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: I think it is, and explained and refered in a github file. My main concern is that they did do not include a comparison analysis to verify their results, i.e., accuracy and precision


    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Yes they are but in some cases information is redundant: provided in tables and text the same inforamtion, see p.7 table 2


    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: The paper present a case study of use of IRs in a period of five months. The counts show that ETD repositories seem to have more trafic, in terms of use and downloads. However to affirm this, the comparison should have been done among the same type of repositories.
    The results of the country device data analyses coclude taht IR content came form desktop users, somthing that is logical and does not add anything new.
    Another affirmation (p.10) is that global North generally access IR more frequently that those in the Global South. This is to much for an anlayis whith most of the IRs fro th North!


    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: I do not think that this paper could represent a novel contribution to this subject.


    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: The paper is well writen with an excess of quotations, as I have mentioned previously


    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: Methology could be reproducible, not the data because they could change along the time


    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: Yes, I would like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2020/09/07

    I think authors should compare their data with data from other harvesters, and include mor variables to discuss this matter

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2020/08/26

    An interesting and useful preliminary investigation. Please refer my specific comments to the review criteria.

    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.