Cadmore media player playing video Perspectives on Metadata Quality and Completeness Recording
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
Perspectives on Metadata Quality and Completeness Recording
Description:
Perspectives on Metadata Quality and Completeness Recording
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/f12933c7-d250-4d19-adb8-e85f5311ad17/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H49M44S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/f12933c7-d250-4d19-adb8-e85f5311ad17
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/f12933c7-d250-4d19-adb8-e85f5311ad17/Perspectives on metadata quality and completeness-NISO Plus.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=B4KzFgo%2B9wd3t2QsITbCrbpjAczBHZtN%2BGrvq1diHo0%3D&st=2024-11-24T19%3A21%3A35Z&se=2024-11-24T21%3A26%3A35Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-03-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
JASON FRIEDMAN: Welcome, bienvenue.
JASON FRIEDMAN: This session is entitled perspectives on metadata, quality and completeness, and I am quite excited about it because I know NISO Plus is all about in certain respects talking about metadata, but in this session, we're going to get into some of the more practical concerns and have some really interesting perspectives to share. I'm the moderator, Jason Freedman. I work at the Canadian Research Knowledge Network.
JASON FRIEDMAN: I'm Senior Manager, Heritage Services there. And with me the people actually presenting are Jessica Clark Coalition Publica Coordinator, Ana Heredia, independent consultant. Maria Johnsson, project coordinator Lund University. And Matthew Ragucci, associate director of b2b product marketing at Wiley. So we've got a great variety of panelists and I'm really looking forward to their presentations and then a great conversation to follow.
JASON FRIEDMAN: So without further adieu, we're going to lead off with Matthew talking from his perspective at Wiley. Take it away, Matthew. Thank you very much, Jason. And just confirming everyone can see my screen. Not not. I can't, actually. Oh, you know what?
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: I haven't hit the Share button. That might help. OK better now. Yeah yes, I can a deep breath and relax. Give Jason that buffer to edit the starting now. I thank you for that introduction, Jason. And yes, I'm here to talk about the publisher perspective on metadata impact for quality and completeness. So my name is Matthew Ragucci.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: I'm the Associate Director of B2B product marketing at Wiley. And yes, I'm going to talk about large scale commercial publishing in relation to metadata. And to start, I always like to start with a cheeky quote here, but not just because I'm a Star Wars fan, but I felt like this is fairly relevant in my discussions about metadata with my colleagues in several ways. Metadata is a bit like the Force in Star Wars in that. It's this invisible instance that really helps bind the scholarly communications universe together that not everyone can really see or appreciate.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: But it's certainly there, and it's the engine that's driving communication, research impact. And I'm going to talk a little bit about that in the presentation you're about to hear. I just wanted to use this quote to really just underscore the importance of metadata as it exists, not just to publishers, but really to all stakeholders. So some of the metadata practices or guidelines. Perhaps from a publisher perspective, first and foremost.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: The one thing I cannot say enough is that robust metadata really is in everyone's best interest. If you think about all of the stakeholders that exist in the scholarly communications ecosystem publishers, libraries, users, researchers. The metadata impacts them in different ways. But for each of these stakeholder groups, the more complete metadata and the more quality metadata there is out there, it leads to content discovery, it leads to access, it leads to usage.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: That helps the researcher, obviously, because they're finding the content that they need. It helps libraries because they're serving the researchers. It helps publishers because more usage could lead to higher revenue for them. So it's certainly in everyone's best interest to frontload and put as much metadata, relevant metadata as they can out there to all the stakeholders that are connected.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And to also do this in a standards compliant way, to have metadata that is interoperable between stakeholders and the different systems that they use and not using proprietary metadata that needs to be recreated or translated into other formats. And I list some of the metadata formats that I work with closely at Wiley, but there are certainly other ones that exist as well. And you'll be hearing a little bit about them in a few slides.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And this may also seem intuitive, but when I talk about metadata to folks, it's important to realize that there's different behavior, different expectations and awareness around different standards about how the metadata feeds work and the interconnectedness and complexity of it. And speaking of that complexity, there is different metadata for different content types. So at Wiley, some of the things that we offer, the different content types or serials and monographs or books and journals, right.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And there are different metadata types for those different content types. And it's incredibly complex because you have to manage these different types of different stakeholders. But at the end of the day. It's really important that content providers and publishers consider the impact of the metadata and how it gets downstream.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: As content providers, we have a responsibility to provide this metadata because ultimately it ends up the content that's being produced, the research that's being output ends up in the hands of the end user of the researcher as it's being consumed downstream in the information cycle. I'm sharing a diagram here that may seem a bit complex, and I'm not doing this to scare you.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: This is actually this is an adaptation created from a colleague of mine at IEEE, Julia Zhu, who I believe is actually speaking at an NISO this year. And I shown in this diagram because it really demonstrates how important the metadata flows between different stakeholders actually is. So if you're looking at this diagram from left to right, you can see the different stakeholder groups, publishers, vendors, libraries, users, organizations like Crossref, identity authenticator providers all the way down to the end user when they click an abstract.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And again, if you're looking at this from left to right, there's different pieces of metadata that the different stakeholder groups are concerned in. And then how that metadata flows between the different stakeholder groups and all of these arrows in this diagram represent a data flow of some sort, right? And that's metadata that's being pushed in between these different stakeholder groups. And if there is a break.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And this chain, ultimately the user may not discover or they may not be able to access content that they need for the purposes of research and creating their own research and contributing to the research information cycle. So again, this really underscores the complexity, but also the importance of the interconnectedness and partnerships that exist between the different stakeholder groups for metadata and those data feeds and flows.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: Now, if we can Zoom back for a little bit, this is another adaptation from some other colleagues that have been charting discovery pathways, but metadata also applies here. So that diagram that I just showed you earlier is really focuses on what I would call library centric discovery, right? So libraries, resource librarians put a lot of work into maintaining catalogs and discovery layers and other library management systems for the purposes of their users.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: But that's not the whole picture. And if we look at this diagram from left or right from the publisher perspective, we want to understand how we can get the end user students, faculty, researchers, librarians through sort of the delivery phase into the or excuse me, into the discovery phase. Into the delivery phase. So how can they get the content they want?
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: How can they find that content? And so much of that, again, is being powered by metadata in different ways. So the two blue squares that you see in the upper left hand corner, that's what I would call strictly library centric discovery and relevant to that diagram that I shared earlier. But it's important to acknowledge that there are other pathways that exist that are being fed from publisher metadata and perhaps most prominently web scale search things like Google Scholar and Baidu scholar drive so much of referral traffic to publisher platforms like our Wiley Online library, but certainly others as well.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: So being able to contribute metadata there as well as equally important. And I'll talk about that more in a moment. I know I have been talking a lot about libraries, but they are one of our key partners in helping disseminate research in their institutions and around the world. And in order to do that, there need to be partnerships that exist with many.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: What I would call library vendors, and some of them are the more prominent ones are listed and this box over here to the right. But when we work with vendors and trying to disseminate metadata that will make sense to them and to libraries, we have to consider the what and the how. So what we're sending and what formats. Full text article abstracts, e-table of contents, and then sharing that over a variety of different formats.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: ONIX, MARC, there's a lot of acronyms in here, so I won't go into all the details, but then also supporting user driven metadata, finding methods like text and data mining as well. So either going through a vendor or letting the user engaged on our publishing platform as well to sort out through metadata. That is how discovery access happens. And it's important that these things are supported by publishers and other content providers.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: I've been talking at a very high level about how discovery, how access works and how metadata powers that. But I thought it would be helpful to provide a few examples of how publishers actually do this to drive and partner with libraries for their purposes of discovery. So when I started at Wiley, I cut my teeth on something called MARC records. And for those of you who don't know, MARC is an acronym.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: It stands for MAchine Readable Cataloging. What? these are essentially electronic versions of cards in the card catalogs in the library catalogs, rather. So it's important for library driven discovery that these MARC records exist for certain content types, mainly books and monographic materials, but also for serial content as well. So as a publisher, one of the things that we do at Wiley is we use something called ONIX, which is an acronym for ONline Information eXchange.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: We are putting metadata, descriptive metadata in this format in ONIX and sending it in a feed out to multiple external partners like OCLC, with which Wiley does have a commercial agreement to create, deliver and support these records. And if you're looking at this table at the right hand side of the diagram, just at a very high level, shows that there's mapping in these ONIX fields that go into the creation of MARC records, which is what libraries need to help drive discovery within their institutions.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And for each little piece of metadata that's very difficult to look at or understand with the human eye. It's being converted into something like a MARC record, which has key bibliographic elements and descriptors that are going to drive library discovery and also on the front end make sense to the end user when they are searching in their library catalogs, as well as providing persistent linking through digital object identifiers.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: So again, this is just an example of how metadata gets shifted, shaped around in a way that's digestible for some of our library partners, but ultimately in the hands of the end user. There are other ways in which metadata can help. Content, discovery and as I mentioned. The Google Scholar and other web scale search entities out there. They're an important part of discovery.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: So we want to in addition to partnering with libraries and getting them the metadata that they can ingest and that they need. Also working with search engines like Google and the way that we do this is we're providing metadata tags to the HTML for articles because this really improves citations either at the title or author level. This metadata tagging also helps Google track the different versions of articles.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And so Wiley actually provides Google XML full text access. So that's content behind the paywall for indexing purposes. So that they can actually look and comb its scrape content for search results that are happening. When when anyone really uses Google scholar, presumably in a fair way using an algorithm that takes these descriptors that exist in the XML, but it also provides it also helps they're cited by metrics as well, which I'm sure some of you have used.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: Google Scholar you'll see is an important metric and that is powered by metadata. Additionally, our website, Wiley Online library, our platform. Rather, it's designed in a way that search engines can easily navigate through metadata to find new content, to find bias, specific biases and issues as well, so that the user doesn't have to go in search too much after they click on a link that they find in Google Scholar that they can actually get to the content.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And this does require consistent collaboration and partnership, not just between Wiley and Atypon (who hosts our content), but also Google and meeting them regularly and making sure that they're following tagging practices that best the search engine to make sure that the relevant content is getting in the hands of the users, because we know that discovery and access does happen outside the library. So we also want to support that and invest in it.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: So another example in which metadata can be used to support library access through Google that is through authentication. And there is some tagging and identification at the article level for open access content, for free content, for embargoed content, but also Wiley provides institutional holdings data and subscriber data to Google. And what this means essentially.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And if you look at this screenshot here in the center of the slide. And if you use Google scholar, I'm sure this will look familiar is that when you find content that or an article perhaps that you want to look at, there are different versions of that content. Right and so Google is trying to find the least path of resistance to try to get you access to content.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And sometimes that's blocked by a paywall. But if a user is already authenticated. What happens essentially because Wiley shares the institutional holdings metadata with Google is that the version of record will float to the top, so to speak. So that that is the first version that the user will see. And this isn't a vanity thing, but if there's a licensed version of content or if a user has to choose between the licensed version of content that they have access to and some sort of green open access article or something that exists on an institutional repository, the library would benefit from being able to track that information through the version of record through the Wiley platform as opposed to somewhere else.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: Of course, the goal is to get the user the content that they need, but if given that choice, it should be something that could be tracked by libraries so that they can make the appropriate collection decisions based on journal subscriptions and other things. So that's just another example in which how Wiley participates with Google to share metadata, to support access. And this is my penultimate slide here, so I'll make this quick.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: Just some closing observations and recommendations from my perspective is that providers, publishers should try to optimize their content. It almost seems like a no brainer at this point and interoperability using standards as well. And I know I'm talking to the right crowd here because I'm speaking at an NISO event and everyone appreciates standards and recommended practices.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: Proprietary metadata doesn't really work as well as has been standardized across the field because the exchange between stakeholders. And again systems is much easier when you use a standard and quality metadata too, that you just don't want these sort of bare bones, stud records that come out either at the article or chapter title level, that you want to be able to provide as much quality metadata as possible to support discovery, to support access, and to support usage.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: Because, as I described earlier, that is in everyone's best interest in the research ecosystem. But in order to follow standards and practice recommended practices, that does also require transparency. So there are some audits that are involved with that. Publishers do need to be transparent around how they're sharing metadata in a standard way as well to get NISO endorsements and things like that, which also require significant investment.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And also, it's important that publishers look at the metadata trends that exist in the field so that they're not caught flat footed when a new metadata standard emerges. Right so, for example, BIBFRAME is something that has emerged that is potential successor to MARC. So that is an example in which content providers and vendors will want to get ahead of so that they can be able to provide metadata that will be easily ingestible and fed downstream.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And last but not least, I would expect that most of the content providers on this call have made some sort of an investment in metadata and keep working to that keeps strengthening that investment because that is what that is the invisible engine, the Force, if you will, that's driving discovery, access and usage. So continue that investment, strengthen it where you can look into more standards that create efficiencies and metadata delivery as well.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: That really cannot be understated. I look forward to hearing your questions at the end of this session. And with that, I'm going to go ahead and pass to Jessica for the next segment of this presentation. Thank you very much. So thanks, Matthew, for that enlightening presentation. I'm going to stop my video before I share my screen just to maintain my connection.
JESSICA CLARK: All right. Here we go. So Thanks very much for inviting me here today. And thank you for everyone who helped organize this session. My name is Jessica Clark. I am the coordinator of Coalition Publica, which is a Canadian project that I will tell you a little bit more about in just a second.
JESSICA CLARK: And I work with what I call small and very small publishers, by which I mean editorial teams that have one full time equivalent or less dedicated staff, which I would count as small or volunteer run with, maybe just primarily the editor in chief managing most of the operations of the journal, which would count as very small in my books. So let me tell you a little bit about our project.
JESSICA CLARK: Metadata matters in our context out there. So Coalition Publica is a partnership between Érudit and the Public Knowledge Project to advance research dissemination and digital scholarly publishing in Canada. We are developing a non-commercial, open source national infrastructure for digital scholarly publishing, dissemination and research by combining Open Journal Systems, which is open source journal publishing platform, developed and maintained by the Public Knowledge Project and the erudit.org platform, which is a centralized dissemination platform for scholarly journals based at the University of Montreal.
JESSICA CLARK: And for some of you who may not be familiar with it, this is just a little few little screen captures of OJS or Open Journal Systems. It allows journals to manage submissions, peer reviews and publish online in a nicely presented website. The journals we work with have OJS websites that are hosted at many institutions across Canada in a sort of decentralized context.
JESSICA CLARK: And this is just a few screencaps from the Érudit platform. Like I said, it's centralized dissemination platforms or scholarly journals based at the University of Montreal. One thing I will note is that we are a platform, not a publisher, which may help to explain some of the more collaborative approach that we take towards how we work with our journal publishers. The platform started its life as a primarily French language platform a number of years ago, but has now taken on a more national role.
JESSICA CLARK: Hosting both English and French language journals and the Coalition Public project really brings together content that was originally published on OJS in that decentralized context, and then disseminates it on Érudit in a centralized way where it could then be pushed out to the rest of the world. So in this context, metadata is very important. If you have worked in metadata, you may have heard the phrase garbage in, garbage out at some point.
JESSICA CLARK: And this is what we are trying to avoid. But the broader operations of our platform is that our publishers are small and very small publishers enter metadata in their OJS. This metadata gets transferred to Érudit where it is curated or cleaned up by our production team, and then from Érudit sent out to the world using a lot of those standards that Matthew spoke about in his presentation.
JESSICA CLARK: So in our situation, one of the challenges and some of the potential solutions that we have come up with. So I'd say the first challenge is general knowledge of metadata. And again, thinking again of our small and very small publishers. They are not usually publishing professionals. They are scholars, academics who just want to publish top quality research in their areas.
JESSICA CLARK: So often we need to start at the basics by answering the question, what is metadata? And the most effective way I've found to explain metadata is by saying it's information about information. Scholarly journal articles are, in essence a bundle of information. And so metadata about those articles is just information about those articles that will help people find them and read them, use them for their own research and perhaps teaching purposes.
JESSICA CLARK: When I'm talking about metadata with my journals, I always underline how it helps them. So in the context of our project, with metadata being transferred from OJS to Érudit. Of course it does help us to reduce our work in terms of curating metadata when the publishers enter it in well and completely. But I also try to underline that when they enter quality and complete metadata into their use, it also helps people find research directly on their OJS through some of those kind of external searches that Matthew was talking about, kind of outside of the chain of primarily library focused metadata dissemination.
JESSICA CLARK: So I always like to underline there is benefit to them to put in the effort to make sure that their metadata is both complete and of a high quality. So once that groundwork is laid, the publishers can then get on with their work and we get on with our work of helping them improve their metadata. I always find it helpful to provide some broad principles that can be followed in almost every situation.
JESSICA CLARK: The one that we have chosen is that the metadata and PDFs and the metadata captured in OJS, the OJS system that the journals are using should always match perfectly. But we also provide practical guidelines and that these cover both the how where to click and details like what to put where. So we have created a guide that I will put in the chat, the links to this guide in both English and French into the chat.
JESSICA CLARK: So you can check it out later if you would like. And you will see that it is very detailed in some respects, but even with great documentation, some publishers will need some hand-holding, which will involve perhaps multiple calls, meetings, screen shares. "Ah I see what you're doing wrong there. You need to put this information in this box and that information in that box."
JESSICA CLARK: But the ultimate goal is that eventually all of the publishers are self sufficient in terms of preparing quality metadata. One of our solutions was to provide a cheat sheet. So within our guide, the very last page, we created it as a mini poster. And I always recommend to our publishers to print this out and stick it up wherever they usually work on the journal or tuck it in front of the folder where they keep all of their editorial notes.
JESSICA CLARK: And I tell them that if they're following this one page, they're going to get an A on their metadata. So while our guide has very detailed sections, sometimes this can be information overload, especially for our very small volunteer run journals, where you've got maybe an editor in chief and a managing editor with full teaching and research loads doing this all at the side off their desk.
JESSICA CLARK: We really have to think about capacity of our journals in a lot of contexts. So what does our cheat sheet include? Ours is making sure that any metadata related settings have been reviewed and are all tickety boo. Again, returning to that basic principle that any metadata that is contained in a PDF should also be entered in OJ's and that it should be exactly the same.
JESSICA CLARK: And present in both places. Because Canada is a bilingual country, we're dealing with a lot of multilingual metadata, so making sure that metadata that is in different languages is always separate, never combined in the same field, that journals are only using metadata fields for what they're intending for, that they're not, as we would say, quote unquote, abusing metadata fields normally for display purposes, like, "ooh, I'd really like for this information to appear on this spot, on this page."
JESSICA CLARK: It's like, "well, that's not what metadata is designed for." We also say never to include placeholder text, so something like "not applicable" or for example, a book review that would not normally have an abstract. Sometimes we see in an abstract field, "this is a book review of the Book of this title" that's placeholder text that we always discourage and that for longer metadata elements like abstracts and references that journals take the time to make sure that they're avoiding copying in hidden formatting or more importantly even hidden line breaks that would cause display issues further downstream.
JESSICA CLARK: But our overall approach is to stay really collaborative in the sense that we are always working together with the journals. We're looking for incremental improvements. Nobody's expect to be perfect on the first go. While clear guidelines are always helpful. Nobody likes to be told what to do. Nobody likes to be like, "this is mandatory.
JESSICA CLARK: And if you don't do this, we're charging you fees." At a certain point, some of that might be necessary, but you should always start from a place of we're working together, we want to help you. We're here to help. How can we do this together? Making It a little bit better every time is going to help everyone. And again, turning to that capacity issue, if you put too much pressure upfront on the small journal team, they have to get it right.
JESSICA CLARK: They have to do it perfectly. They have to maybe start dealing with some more complex metadata like references. They're just going to get overloaded and and perhaps stop engaging with you, which is detrimental for the whole relationship and also for the metadata that you hope to push out to the world and make all of this quality research discoverable. So some final thoughts.
JESSICA CLARK: Metadata is all about bringing it all together. You know, if journals were sweets, metadata, the icing on the cake. So especially in our context, quality metadata is allowing us to centralize a previously decentralized collection of Canadian scholarly journals. And then we can send that out to the rest of the world where people can find it and use it, and where we can create a growing readership for the small but wonderfully productive and important journals that we support.
JESSICA CLARK: Thank you very much for listening and I look forward to hearing your questions in the chat and I will now pass this over to Ana.
ANA HEREDIA: Thank you, Jessica. This gives me... ... your presentation gives me a great, great connection with mine. So we're talking about the.
ANA HEREDIA: The difficulties around small journals and non-professional, not "not good", but non-professional editors. So thank you very much. I'm going to share with you some thoughts about what a researcher's view is on metadata quality and completeness. Thank you for having me here. Thank you.
ANA HEREDIA: NISO for inviting me. This year. So I'm Ana Heredia, I am here today to share with you some of what researchers like I was. think about research information metadata. So just so you know a bit about where I'm standing today, my last position at an organization was at ORCID, where I was engaged as a membership director for Latin America.
ANA HEREDIA: And before that, I was a researcher for around 10 years in France, Belgium and Brazil. So today I'm here with my researcher hat on. But you have to know that I am a persistent identifiers enthusiast. So when I talk about data, metadata and persistent identifiers to my friends/researchers and highlight the importance of these matters to the visibility of their work and the development of research itself.
ANA HEREDIA: I always get a very suspicious look that makes me feel like a converted member of a sect, which I am actually I am convinced, but they're not. And it's not because they don't care. They just they trust me. That is important, but they don't want to know more. They are almost exclusively passionate by their research subjects, and unless they happen to be in the research information field.
ANA HEREDIA: They won't do anything about it. So this is what I have experienced and that I am sharing. But they are asked to do more because we are there trying to understand what to do to engage researchers in this conversation. So here. I'm going to share with you a little bit of this idea of research waste coupled with the researcher invisibility.
ANA HEREDIA: So better data could help solve. Partially or completely many of the problems. Researchers face. Only a small part of what I've done as a researcher is visible today also because I started research at the pre-digital era. Only recently, I had the courage to throw away all the papers with my negative and unpublished results writing observations, filled notebooks, videos of my experiments, all material that remained invisible for years and that could have been useful for next generations of researchers.
ANA HEREDIA: As my papers are still being cited and all this material just had to throw it away. So in the same manner to have access to data from other researchers, to build my own research, to have access to negative or non statistically significant results from colleagues could have saved a lot of effort, frustration, time and money. So here I recognize the importance of negative results and frustration in the research process and in the process of learning how to do research.
ANA HEREDIA: Many great things emerged from the unpredictable aspects of research. So in short, if the results of research are never or incompletely made publicly accessible to other researchers or to end users, then they cannot contribute to knowledge. The time, the effort, and the funds involved in planning and conducting further research without access to this knowledge is incalculable.
ANA HEREDIA: And here I highlight some of the factors that are considered as a research waste. And a little bit of evidence of some studies being carried about how the proportion of the research that is produced, that is not published. There is also the biased under-reporting of studies with disappointing results, disappointing in brackets.
ANA HEREDIA: Or, for example, the statistically non-significant results. I also highlight here the language of the data and the metadata, meaning that everything that is not published in, all the research that is published in local, non-English journals that are not indexed in mainstream databases is also invisible. So summing up all of these criteria, see the number of information, the quantity of information that we are not accessing.
ANA HEREDIA: So, Who is responsible for what? Which is another discussion we used to have when talking about metadata. So who needs or I would turn the question otherwise, who needs the better metadata? Right, who really needs this metadata? So policymakers and funders, need good metadata to have a better understanding of the research.
ANA HEREDIA: They fund track trends and have database intelligence for strategy, strategic, strategic purposes. They have to define minimum metadata quality standards, make the requirements very clear and mandatory, and evaluate the compliance. Research institutions need good metadata to better manage their information for archival purposes and for data based intelligence. They have the mission to educate and support research leaders and information professionals to navigate their metadata road together.
ANA HEREDIA: Publishers need to prepare quality better data as an investment into discoverability, the dissemination and ultimately in the research impact of their journals. They need to be very clear in the author guidelines and support authors to do the best. Researchers need good metadata to make the research they produce visible and to have access and use all pieces of other researchers research.
ANA HEREDIA: They need their affiliation institutions and their publishers to take care of the metadata for and with them. So researchers in all of these system, they provide research information. Let's don't ask them to do more than that. And this is my last slide. So my data quality and here there is a little bit of a bridge to Maria, my colleague, that is speaking next.
ANA HEREDIA: I am not giving recommendations, but I think I've just highlighted some of the points that may touch the researchers heart when we talk about metadata. One of it is trust and transparency in research reports, reproducibility. It's a key for open science. It's important for data reuse, for to create new visions, develop new insights on that. Other is already there and results are already there.
ANA HEREDIA: It's about credit, acknowledgment and recognition to the work, to everything that researchers do. Not only papers indexed in nice databases or published it in high impact journals. And of course, it's visibility for research and they are researchers. So thank you very much for your attention. I'm looking forward for the discussion, the questions, and I'll leave you with Maria.
ANA HEREDIA: Thank you very much.
MARIA JOHNSSON: Thank you, Ana, for this nice presentation and I will share my screen. So yes, Hello.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And I will continue on the researcher perspective and also on the library and librarian perspective. So thank you for inviting me. And I so and the colleagues here today. I'm Maria Johnsen from Lund University in Sweden, working at the Library of the medical faculty at the University. And the title of my presentation here today on this session is metadata could be here, there and everywhere, convincing research about the values and benefits of metadata.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And as a librarian and information specialist, I have worked for quite a long time with researchers and researchers support helping researchers to disseminate and communicate the research and the data. And in the last 10 years, I've worked a lot with developing services for research data management.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And during this period of time, we've seen a tremendous development of research systems containing metadata and metadata of good quality, such as institutional repositories, data repositories and research infrastructure and so on. And also during these years past years, there has been higher requirements on the researchers from funders, research funders on sharing and publishing data, research data.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And this also means enhanced focused on metadata. And in my role as the librarian in the librarian environment, I have been for a long time being convincing, trying to convince research about the value and benefits of metadata, good quality metadata in their own publication and other scientific outputs.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And in the library, we ask researchers to either add or update method record metadata in records in the institutional repositories or in data repositories also now lately. And when we do this from the libraries, we also very, very we explain the University policies on research, communication and research data and give clear guidelines on metadata.
MARIA JOHNSSON: So a lot of education and guidelines and that nowadays the increased focus on open science and open data as a whole has also led to more training and education in metadata standards and knowledge organizations towards these use group as researchers.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And also the FAIR principles have become quite important and more important in the research community lately, and also among research funders and policymakers. And fair, which stands for f for findable a for accessible I for interoperable or for reusable data. And these are 15 guidelines, practical guidelines describing on how to make data more accessible and reusable to the outside world for researcher.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And here metadata is some important components in particular when it comes to make data findable. So the researchers should make their data findable over in the outside world. And when the data is findable, the data might be cited, get citations and reach out to a wider audience for the researcher, which would be very beneficial for the researcher.
MARIA JOHNSSON: So from my point of view, as a librarian, it's not difficult to give researchers argument for making research and data fair. The problem. The challenge is how to show them to do it, the right routines and the right procedures for doing this.
MARIA JOHNSSON: Meta data could be everywhere. The existing metadata existence of metadata is not only in the databases or in the catalogues, it might also be in the machines. Instruments, microscopes. Tools with research data. And when capturing or creating or processing data from these machines, how to make use of the metadata coming along with the data from the machines.
MARIA JOHNSSON: How to transfer metadata from an instrument back home to your computer to the researchers network service. And in what format does metadata came out from the machines? From the instruments. And this could be quite tricky and challenging problems to the researcher who might be very happy to have succeeded capturing interesting data from the machines.
MARIA JOHNSSON: So metadata such as variables, provenance parameters coming out from the machines might be very valuable in particularly in the later process, later phase of the data analysis. So now we would like to hear about your experiences, views, ideas of the metadata.
MARIA JOHNSSON: So to help out help start off a discussion here in this session. Here's two questions. The first one, what are your experiences helping supporting researchers with metadata? Or you might be a researcher yourself. What are your experiences? All metadata. And to how to motivate researchers or other user groups to enrich scientific outputs with metadata.
MARIA JOHNSSON: Yes, we look forward to hearing about your views and your ideas. So mate, the data could be here, there, and everywhere. Here, there, and everywhere. Here, there, and everywhere. Thank you.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And of course, credit to the Beatles here, there, and everywhere.
MARIA JOHNSSON: Thank you very much, Maria, for that great presentation. I always love a good Beatles reference and some nice bonus singing there. I think maybe we can start off with the two questions you proposed and have a good conversation having these different perspectives.
MARIA JOHNSSON: So thank you all for these presentations and I'm looking forward to a great discussion.
Segment:0 .
JASON FRIEDMAN: Welcome, bienvenue.
JASON FRIEDMAN: This session is entitled perspectives on metadata, quality and completeness, and I am quite excited about it because I know NISO Plus is all about in certain respects talking about metadata, but in this session, we're going to get into some of the more practical concerns and have some really interesting perspectives to share. I'm the moderator, Jason Freedman. I work at the Canadian Research Knowledge Network.
JASON FRIEDMAN: I'm Senior Manager, Heritage Services there. And with me the people actually presenting are Jessica Clark Coalition Publica Coordinator, Ana Heredia, independent consultant. Maria Johnsson, project coordinator Lund University. And Matthew Ragucci, associate director of b2b product marketing at Wiley. So we've got a great variety of panelists and I'm really looking forward to their presentations and then a great conversation to follow.
JASON FRIEDMAN: So without further adieu, we're going to lead off with Matthew talking from his perspective at Wiley. Take it away, Matthew. Thank you very much, Jason. And just confirming everyone can see my screen. Not not. I can't, actually. Oh, you know what?
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: I haven't hit the Share button. That might help. OK better now. Yeah yes, I can a deep breath and relax. Give Jason that buffer to edit the starting now. I thank you for that introduction, Jason. And yes, I'm here to talk about the publisher perspective on metadata impact for quality and completeness. So my name is Matthew Ragucci.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: I'm the Associate Director of B2B product marketing at Wiley. And yes, I'm going to talk about large scale commercial publishing in relation to metadata. And to start, I always like to start with a cheeky quote here, but not just because I'm a Star Wars fan, but I felt like this is fairly relevant in my discussions about metadata with my colleagues in several ways. Metadata is a bit like the Force in Star Wars in that. It's this invisible instance that really helps bind the scholarly communications universe together that not everyone can really see or appreciate.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: But it's certainly there, and it's the engine that's driving communication, research impact. And I'm going to talk a little bit about that in the presentation you're about to hear. I just wanted to use this quote to really just underscore the importance of metadata as it exists, not just to publishers, but really to all stakeholders. So some of the metadata practices or guidelines. Perhaps from a publisher perspective, first and foremost.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: The one thing I cannot say enough is that robust metadata really is in everyone's best interest. If you think about all of the stakeholders that exist in the scholarly communications ecosystem publishers, libraries, users, researchers. The metadata impacts them in different ways. But for each of these stakeholder groups, the more complete metadata and the more quality metadata there is out there, it leads to content discovery, it leads to access, it leads to usage.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: That helps the researcher, obviously, because they're finding the content that they need. It helps libraries because they're serving the researchers. It helps publishers because more usage could lead to higher revenue for them. So it's certainly in everyone's best interest to frontload and put as much metadata, relevant metadata as they can out there to all the stakeholders that are connected.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And to also do this in a standards compliant way, to have metadata that is interoperable between stakeholders and the different systems that they use and not using proprietary metadata that needs to be recreated or translated into other formats. And I list some of the metadata formats that I work with closely at Wiley, but there are certainly other ones that exist as well. And you'll be hearing a little bit about them in a few slides.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And this may also seem intuitive, but when I talk about metadata to folks, it's important to realize that there's different behavior, different expectations and awareness around different standards about how the metadata feeds work and the interconnectedness and complexity of it. And speaking of that complexity, there is different metadata for different content types. So at Wiley, some of the things that we offer, the different content types or serials and monographs or books and journals, right.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And there are different metadata types for those different content types. And it's incredibly complex because you have to manage these different types of different stakeholders. But at the end of the day. It's really important that content providers and publishers consider the impact of the metadata and how it gets downstream.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: As content providers, we have a responsibility to provide this metadata because ultimately it ends up the content that's being produced, the research that's being output ends up in the hands of the end user of the researcher as it's being consumed downstream in the information cycle. I'm sharing a diagram here that may seem a bit complex, and I'm not doing this to scare you.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: This is actually this is an adaptation created from a colleague of mine at IEEE, Julia Zhu, who I believe is actually speaking at an NISO this year. And I shown in this diagram because it really demonstrates how important the metadata flows between different stakeholders actually is. So if you're looking at this diagram from left to right, you can see the different stakeholder groups, publishers, vendors, libraries, users, organizations like Crossref, identity authenticator providers all the way down to the end user when they click an abstract.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And again, if you're looking at this from left to right, there's different pieces of metadata that the different stakeholder groups are concerned in. And then how that metadata flows between the different stakeholder groups and all of these arrows in this diagram represent a data flow of some sort, right? And that's metadata that's being pushed in between these different stakeholder groups. And if there is a break.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And this chain, ultimately the user may not discover or they may not be able to access content that they need for the purposes of research and creating their own research and contributing to the research information cycle. So again, this really underscores the complexity, but also the importance of the interconnectedness and partnerships that exist between the different stakeholder groups for metadata and those data feeds and flows.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: Now, if we can Zoom back for a little bit, this is another adaptation from some other colleagues that have been charting discovery pathways, but metadata also applies here. So that diagram that I just showed you earlier is really focuses on what I would call library centric discovery, right? So libraries, resource librarians put a lot of work into maintaining catalogs and discovery layers and other library management systems for the purposes of their users.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: But that's not the whole picture. And if we look at this diagram from left or right from the publisher perspective, we want to understand how we can get the end user students, faculty, researchers, librarians through sort of the delivery phase into the or excuse me, into the discovery phase. Into the delivery phase. So how can they get the content they want?
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: How can they find that content? And so much of that, again, is being powered by metadata in different ways. So the two blue squares that you see in the upper left hand corner, that's what I would call strictly library centric discovery and relevant to that diagram that I shared earlier. But it's important to acknowledge that there are other pathways that exist that are being fed from publisher metadata and perhaps most prominently web scale search things like Google Scholar and Baidu scholar drive so much of referral traffic to publisher platforms like our Wiley Online library, but certainly others as well.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: So being able to contribute metadata there as well as equally important. And I'll talk about that more in a moment. I know I have been talking a lot about libraries, but they are one of our key partners in helping disseminate research in their institutions and around the world. And in order to do that, there need to be partnerships that exist with many.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: What I would call library vendors, and some of them are the more prominent ones are listed and this box over here to the right. But when we work with vendors and trying to disseminate metadata that will make sense to them and to libraries, we have to consider the what and the how. So what we're sending and what formats. Full text article abstracts, e-table of contents, and then sharing that over a variety of different formats.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: ONIX, MARC, there's a lot of acronyms in here, so I won't go into all the details, but then also supporting user driven metadata, finding methods like text and data mining as well. So either going through a vendor or letting the user engaged on our publishing platform as well to sort out through metadata. That is how discovery access happens. And it's important that these things are supported by publishers and other content providers.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: I've been talking at a very high level about how discovery, how access works and how metadata powers that. But I thought it would be helpful to provide a few examples of how publishers actually do this to drive and partner with libraries for their purposes of discovery. So when I started at Wiley, I cut my teeth on something called MARC records. And for those of you who don't know, MARC is an acronym.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: It stands for MAchine Readable Cataloging. What? these are essentially electronic versions of cards in the card catalogs in the library catalogs, rather. So it's important for library driven discovery that these MARC records exist for certain content types, mainly books and monographic materials, but also for serial content as well. So as a publisher, one of the things that we do at Wiley is we use something called ONIX, which is an acronym for ONline Information eXchange.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: We are putting metadata, descriptive metadata in this format in ONIX and sending it in a feed out to multiple external partners like OCLC, with which Wiley does have a commercial agreement to create, deliver and support these records. And if you're looking at this table at the right hand side of the diagram, just at a very high level, shows that there's mapping in these ONIX fields that go into the creation of MARC records, which is what libraries need to help drive discovery within their institutions.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And for each little piece of metadata that's very difficult to look at or understand with the human eye. It's being converted into something like a MARC record, which has key bibliographic elements and descriptors that are going to drive library discovery and also on the front end make sense to the end user when they are searching in their library catalogs, as well as providing persistent linking through digital object identifiers.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: So again, this is just an example of how metadata gets shifted, shaped around in a way that's digestible for some of our library partners, but ultimately in the hands of the end user. There are other ways in which metadata can help. Content, discovery and as I mentioned. The Google Scholar and other web scale search entities out there. They're an important part of discovery.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: So we want to in addition to partnering with libraries and getting them the metadata that they can ingest and that they need. Also working with search engines like Google and the way that we do this is we're providing metadata tags to the HTML for articles because this really improves citations either at the title or author level. This metadata tagging also helps Google track the different versions of articles.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And so Wiley actually provides Google XML full text access. So that's content behind the paywall for indexing purposes. So that they can actually look and comb its scrape content for search results that are happening. When when anyone really uses Google scholar, presumably in a fair way using an algorithm that takes these descriptors that exist in the XML, but it also provides it also helps they're cited by metrics as well, which I'm sure some of you have used.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: Google Scholar you'll see is an important metric and that is powered by metadata. Additionally, our website, Wiley Online library, our platform. Rather, it's designed in a way that search engines can easily navigate through metadata to find new content, to find bias, specific biases and issues as well, so that the user doesn't have to go in search too much after they click on a link that they find in Google Scholar that they can actually get to the content.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And this does require consistent collaboration and partnership, not just between Wiley and Atypon (who hosts our content), but also Google and meeting them regularly and making sure that they're following tagging practices that best the search engine to make sure that the relevant content is getting in the hands of the users, because we know that discovery and access does happen outside the library. So we also want to support that and invest in it.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: So another example in which metadata can be used to support library access through Google that is through authentication. And there is some tagging and identification at the article level for open access content, for free content, for embargoed content, but also Wiley provides institutional holdings data and subscriber data to Google. And what this means essentially.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And if you look at this screenshot here in the center of the slide. And if you use Google scholar, I'm sure this will look familiar is that when you find content that or an article perhaps that you want to look at, there are different versions of that content. Right and so Google is trying to find the least path of resistance to try to get you access to content.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And sometimes that's blocked by a paywall. But if a user is already authenticated. What happens essentially because Wiley shares the institutional holdings metadata with Google is that the version of record will float to the top, so to speak. So that that is the first version that the user will see. And this isn't a vanity thing, but if there's a licensed version of content or if a user has to choose between the licensed version of content that they have access to and some sort of green open access article or something that exists on an institutional repository, the library would benefit from being able to track that information through the version of record through the Wiley platform as opposed to somewhere else.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: Of course, the goal is to get the user the content that they need, but if given that choice, it should be something that could be tracked by libraries so that they can make the appropriate collection decisions based on journal subscriptions and other things. So that's just another example in which how Wiley participates with Google to share metadata, to support access. And this is my penultimate slide here, so I'll make this quick.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: Just some closing observations and recommendations from my perspective is that providers, publishers should try to optimize their content. It almost seems like a no brainer at this point and interoperability using standards as well. And I know I'm talking to the right crowd here because I'm speaking at an NISO event and everyone appreciates standards and recommended practices.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: Proprietary metadata doesn't really work as well as has been standardized across the field because the exchange between stakeholders. And again systems is much easier when you use a standard and quality metadata too, that you just don't want these sort of bare bones, stud records that come out either at the article or chapter title level, that you want to be able to provide as much quality metadata as possible to support discovery, to support access, and to support usage.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: Because, as I described earlier, that is in everyone's best interest in the research ecosystem. But in order to follow standards and practice recommended practices, that does also require transparency. So there are some audits that are involved with that. Publishers do need to be transparent around how they're sharing metadata in a standard way as well to get NISO endorsements and things like that, which also require significant investment.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And also, it's important that publishers look at the metadata trends that exist in the field so that they're not caught flat footed when a new metadata standard emerges. Right so, for example, BIBFRAME is something that has emerged that is potential successor to MARC. So that is an example in which content providers and vendors will want to get ahead of so that they can be able to provide metadata that will be easily ingestible and fed downstream.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: And last but not least, I would expect that most of the content providers on this call have made some sort of an investment in metadata and keep working to that keeps strengthening that investment because that is what that is the invisible engine, the Force, if you will, that's driving discovery, access and usage. So continue that investment, strengthen it where you can look into more standards that create efficiencies and metadata delivery as well.
MATTHEW RAGUCCI: That really cannot be understated. I look forward to hearing your questions at the end of this session. And with that, I'm going to go ahead and pass to Jessica for the next segment of this presentation. Thank you very much. So thanks, Matthew, for that enlightening presentation. I'm going to stop my video before I share my screen just to maintain my connection.
JESSICA CLARK: All right. Here we go. So Thanks very much for inviting me here today. And thank you for everyone who helped organize this session. My name is Jessica Clark. I am the coordinator of Coalition Publica, which is a Canadian project that I will tell you a little bit more about in just a second.
JESSICA CLARK: And I work with what I call small and very small publishers, by which I mean editorial teams that have one full time equivalent or less dedicated staff, which I would count as small or volunteer run with, maybe just primarily the editor in chief managing most of the operations of the journal, which would count as very small in my books. So let me tell you a little bit about our project.
JESSICA CLARK: Metadata matters in our context out there. So Coalition Publica is a partnership between Érudit and the Public Knowledge Project to advance research dissemination and digital scholarly publishing in Canada. We are developing a non-commercial, open source national infrastructure for digital scholarly publishing, dissemination and research by combining Open Journal Systems, which is open source journal publishing platform, developed and maintained by the Public Knowledge Project and the erudit.org platform, which is a centralized dissemination platform for scholarly journals based at the University of Montreal.
JESSICA CLARK: And for some of you who may not be familiar with it, this is just a little few little screen captures of OJS or Open Journal Systems. It allows journals to manage submissions, peer reviews and publish online in a nicely presented website. The journals we work with have OJS websites that are hosted at many institutions across Canada in a sort of decentralized context.
JESSICA CLARK: And this is just a few screencaps from the Érudit platform. Like I said, it's centralized dissemination platforms or scholarly journals based at the University of Montreal. One thing I will note is that we are a platform, not a publisher, which may help to explain some of the more collaborative approach that we take towards how we work with our journal publishers. The platform started its life as a primarily French language platform a number of years ago, but has now taken on a more national role.
JESSICA CLARK: Hosting both English and French language journals and the Coalition Public project really brings together content that was originally published on OJS in that decentralized context, and then disseminates it on Érudit in a centralized way where it could then be pushed out to the rest of the world. So in this context, metadata is very important. If you have worked in metadata, you may have heard the phrase garbage in, garbage out at some point.
JESSICA CLARK: And this is what we are trying to avoid. But the broader operations of our platform is that our publishers are small and very small publishers enter metadata in their OJS. This metadata gets transferred to Érudit where it is curated or cleaned up by our production team, and then from Érudit sent out to the world using a lot of those standards that Matthew spoke about in his presentation.
JESSICA CLARK: So in our situation, one of the challenges and some of the potential solutions that we have come up with. So I'd say the first challenge is general knowledge of metadata. And again, thinking again of our small and very small publishers. They are not usually publishing professionals. They are scholars, academics who just want to publish top quality research in their areas.
JESSICA CLARK: So often we need to start at the basics by answering the question, what is metadata? And the most effective way I've found to explain metadata is by saying it's information about information. Scholarly journal articles are, in essence a bundle of information. And so metadata about those articles is just information about those articles that will help people find them and read them, use them for their own research and perhaps teaching purposes.
JESSICA CLARK: When I'm talking about metadata with my journals, I always underline how it helps them. So in the context of our project, with metadata being transferred from OJS to Érudit. Of course it does help us to reduce our work in terms of curating metadata when the publishers enter it in well and completely. But I also try to underline that when they enter quality and complete metadata into their use, it also helps people find research directly on their OJS through some of those kind of external searches that Matthew was talking about, kind of outside of the chain of primarily library focused metadata dissemination.
JESSICA CLARK: So I always like to underline there is benefit to them to put in the effort to make sure that their metadata is both complete and of a high quality. So once that groundwork is laid, the publishers can then get on with their work and we get on with our work of helping them improve their metadata. I always find it helpful to provide some broad principles that can be followed in almost every situation.
JESSICA CLARK: The one that we have chosen is that the metadata and PDFs and the metadata captured in OJS, the OJS system that the journals are using should always match perfectly. But we also provide practical guidelines and that these cover both the how where to click and details like what to put where. So we have created a guide that I will put in the chat, the links to this guide in both English and French into the chat.
JESSICA CLARK: So you can check it out later if you would like. And you will see that it is very detailed in some respects, but even with great documentation, some publishers will need some hand-holding, which will involve perhaps multiple calls, meetings, screen shares. "Ah I see what you're doing wrong there. You need to put this information in this box and that information in that box."
JESSICA CLARK: But the ultimate goal is that eventually all of the publishers are self sufficient in terms of preparing quality metadata. One of our solutions was to provide a cheat sheet. So within our guide, the very last page, we created it as a mini poster. And I always recommend to our publishers to print this out and stick it up wherever they usually work on the journal or tuck it in front of the folder where they keep all of their editorial notes.
JESSICA CLARK: And I tell them that if they're following this one page, they're going to get an A on their metadata. So while our guide has very detailed sections, sometimes this can be information overload, especially for our very small volunteer run journals, where you've got maybe an editor in chief and a managing editor with full teaching and research loads doing this all at the side off their desk.
JESSICA CLARK: We really have to think about capacity of our journals in a lot of contexts. So what does our cheat sheet include? Ours is making sure that any metadata related settings have been reviewed and are all tickety boo. Again, returning to that basic principle that any metadata that is contained in a PDF should also be entered in OJ's and that it should be exactly the same.
JESSICA CLARK: And present in both places. Because Canada is a bilingual country, we're dealing with a lot of multilingual metadata, so making sure that metadata that is in different languages is always separate, never combined in the same field, that journals are only using metadata fields for what they're intending for, that they're not, as we would say, quote unquote, abusing metadata fields normally for display purposes, like, "ooh, I'd really like for this information to appear on this spot, on this page."
JESSICA CLARK: It's like, "well, that's not what metadata is designed for." We also say never to include placeholder text, so something like "not applicable" or for example, a book review that would not normally have an abstract. Sometimes we see in an abstract field, "this is a book review of the Book of this title" that's placeholder text that we always discourage and that for longer metadata elements like abstracts and references that journals take the time to make sure that they're avoiding copying in hidden formatting or more importantly even hidden line breaks that would cause display issues further downstream.
JESSICA CLARK: But our overall approach is to stay really collaborative in the sense that we are always working together with the journals. We're looking for incremental improvements. Nobody's expect to be perfect on the first go. While clear guidelines are always helpful. Nobody likes to be told what to do. Nobody likes to be like, "this is mandatory.
JESSICA CLARK: And if you don't do this, we're charging you fees." At a certain point, some of that might be necessary, but you should always start from a place of we're working together, we want to help you. We're here to help. How can we do this together? Making It a little bit better every time is going to help everyone. And again, turning to that capacity issue, if you put too much pressure upfront on the small journal team, they have to get it right.
JESSICA CLARK: They have to do it perfectly. They have to maybe start dealing with some more complex metadata like references. They're just going to get overloaded and and perhaps stop engaging with you, which is detrimental for the whole relationship and also for the metadata that you hope to push out to the world and make all of this quality research discoverable. So some final thoughts.
JESSICA CLARK: Metadata is all about bringing it all together. You know, if journals were sweets, metadata, the icing on the cake. So especially in our context, quality metadata is allowing us to centralize a previously decentralized collection of Canadian scholarly journals. And then we can send that out to the rest of the world where people can find it and use it, and where we can create a growing readership for the small but wonderfully productive and important journals that we support.
JESSICA CLARK: Thank you very much for listening and I look forward to hearing your questions in the chat and I will now pass this over to Ana.
ANA HEREDIA: Thank you, Jessica. This gives me... ... your presentation gives me a great, great connection with mine. So we're talking about the.
ANA HEREDIA: The difficulties around small journals and non-professional, not "not good", but non-professional editors. So thank you very much. I'm going to share with you some thoughts about what a researcher's view is on metadata quality and completeness. Thank you for having me here. Thank you.
ANA HEREDIA: NISO for inviting me. This year. So I'm Ana Heredia, I am here today to share with you some of what researchers like I was. think about research information metadata. So just so you know a bit about where I'm standing today, my last position at an organization was at ORCID, where I was engaged as a membership director for Latin America.
ANA HEREDIA: And before that, I was a researcher for around 10 years in France, Belgium and Brazil. So today I'm here with my researcher hat on. But you have to know that I am a persistent identifiers enthusiast. So when I talk about data, metadata and persistent identifiers to my friends/researchers and highlight the importance of these matters to the visibility of their work and the development of research itself.
ANA HEREDIA: I always get a very suspicious look that makes me feel like a converted member of a sect, which I am actually I am convinced, but they're not. And it's not because they don't care. They just they trust me. That is important, but they don't want to know more. They are almost exclusively passionate by their research subjects, and unless they happen to be in the research information field.
ANA HEREDIA: They won't do anything about it. So this is what I have experienced and that I am sharing. But they are asked to do more because we are there trying to understand what to do to engage researchers in this conversation. So here. I'm going to share with you a little bit of this idea of research waste coupled with the researcher invisibility.
ANA HEREDIA: So better data could help solve. Partially or completely many of the problems. Researchers face. Only a small part of what I've done as a researcher is visible today also because I started research at the pre-digital era. Only recently, I had the courage to throw away all the papers with my negative and unpublished results writing observations, filled notebooks, videos of my experiments, all material that remained invisible for years and that could have been useful for next generations of researchers.
ANA HEREDIA: As my papers are still being cited and all this material just had to throw it away. So in the same manner to have access to data from other researchers, to build my own research, to have access to negative or non statistically significant results from colleagues could have saved a lot of effort, frustration, time and money. So here I recognize the importance of negative results and frustration in the research process and in the process of learning how to do research.
ANA HEREDIA: Many great things emerged from the unpredictable aspects of research. So in short, if the results of research are never or incompletely made publicly accessible to other researchers or to end users, then they cannot contribute to knowledge. The time, the effort, and the funds involved in planning and conducting further research without access to this knowledge is incalculable.
ANA HEREDIA: And here I highlight some of the factors that are considered as a research waste. And a little bit of evidence of some studies being carried about how the proportion of the research that is produced, that is not published. There is also the biased under-reporting of studies with disappointing results, disappointing in brackets.
ANA HEREDIA: Or, for example, the statistically non-significant results. I also highlight here the language of the data and the metadata, meaning that everything that is not published in, all the research that is published in local, non-English journals that are not indexed in mainstream databases is also invisible. So summing up all of these criteria, see the number of information, the quantity of information that we are not accessing.
ANA HEREDIA: So, Who is responsible for what? Which is another discussion we used to have when talking about metadata. So who needs or I would turn the question otherwise, who needs the better metadata? Right, who really needs this metadata? So policymakers and funders, need good metadata to have a better understanding of the research.
ANA HEREDIA: They fund track trends and have database intelligence for strategy, strategic, strategic purposes. They have to define minimum metadata quality standards, make the requirements very clear and mandatory, and evaluate the compliance. Research institutions need good metadata to better manage their information for archival purposes and for data based intelligence. They have the mission to educate and support research leaders and information professionals to navigate their metadata road together.
ANA HEREDIA: Publishers need to prepare quality better data as an investment into discoverability, the dissemination and ultimately in the research impact of their journals. They need to be very clear in the author guidelines and support authors to do the best. Researchers need good metadata to make the research they produce visible and to have access and use all pieces of other researchers research.
ANA HEREDIA: They need their affiliation institutions and their publishers to take care of the metadata for and with them. So researchers in all of these system, they provide research information. Let's don't ask them to do more than that. And this is my last slide. So my data quality and here there is a little bit of a bridge to Maria, my colleague, that is speaking next.
ANA HEREDIA: I am not giving recommendations, but I think I've just highlighted some of the points that may touch the researchers heart when we talk about metadata. One of it is trust and transparency in research reports, reproducibility. It's a key for open science. It's important for data reuse, for to create new visions, develop new insights on that. Other is already there and results are already there.
ANA HEREDIA: It's about credit, acknowledgment and recognition to the work, to everything that researchers do. Not only papers indexed in nice databases or published it in high impact journals. And of course, it's visibility for research and they are researchers. So thank you very much for your attention. I'm looking forward for the discussion, the questions, and I'll leave you with Maria.
ANA HEREDIA: Thank you very much.
MARIA JOHNSSON: Thank you, Ana, for this nice presentation and I will share my screen. So yes, Hello.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And I will continue on the researcher perspective and also on the library and librarian perspective. So thank you for inviting me. And I so and the colleagues here today. I'm Maria Johnsen from Lund University in Sweden, working at the Library of the medical faculty at the University. And the title of my presentation here today on this session is metadata could be here, there and everywhere, convincing research about the values and benefits of metadata.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And as a librarian and information specialist, I have worked for quite a long time with researchers and researchers support helping researchers to disseminate and communicate the research and the data. And in the last 10 years, I've worked a lot with developing services for research data management.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And during this period of time, we've seen a tremendous development of research systems containing metadata and metadata of good quality, such as institutional repositories, data repositories and research infrastructure and so on. And also during these years past years, there has been higher requirements on the researchers from funders, research funders on sharing and publishing data, research data.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And this also means enhanced focused on metadata. And in my role as the librarian in the librarian environment, I have been for a long time being convincing, trying to convince research about the value and benefits of metadata, good quality metadata in their own publication and other scientific outputs.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And in the library, we ask researchers to either add or update method record metadata in records in the institutional repositories or in data repositories also now lately. And when we do this from the libraries, we also very, very we explain the University policies on research, communication and research data and give clear guidelines on metadata.
MARIA JOHNSSON: So a lot of education and guidelines and that nowadays the increased focus on open science and open data as a whole has also led to more training and education in metadata standards and knowledge organizations towards these use group as researchers.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And also the FAIR principles have become quite important and more important in the research community lately, and also among research funders and policymakers. And fair, which stands for f for findable a for accessible I for interoperable or for reusable data. And these are 15 guidelines, practical guidelines describing on how to make data more accessible and reusable to the outside world for researcher.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And here metadata is some important components in particular when it comes to make data findable. So the researchers should make their data findable over in the outside world. And when the data is findable, the data might be cited, get citations and reach out to a wider audience for the researcher, which would be very beneficial for the researcher.
MARIA JOHNSSON: So from my point of view, as a librarian, it's not difficult to give researchers argument for making research and data fair. The problem. The challenge is how to show them to do it, the right routines and the right procedures for doing this.
MARIA JOHNSSON: Meta data could be everywhere. The existing metadata existence of metadata is not only in the databases or in the catalogues, it might also be in the machines. Instruments, microscopes. Tools with research data. And when capturing or creating or processing data from these machines, how to make use of the metadata coming along with the data from the machines.
MARIA JOHNSSON: How to transfer metadata from an instrument back home to your computer to the researchers network service. And in what format does metadata came out from the machines? From the instruments. And this could be quite tricky and challenging problems to the researcher who might be very happy to have succeeded capturing interesting data from the machines.
MARIA JOHNSSON: So metadata such as variables, provenance parameters coming out from the machines might be very valuable in particularly in the later process, later phase of the data analysis. So now we would like to hear about your experiences, views, ideas of the metadata.
MARIA JOHNSSON: So to help out help start off a discussion here in this session. Here's two questions. The first one, what are your experiences helping supporting researchers with metadata? Or you might be a researcher yourself. What are your experiences? All metadata. And to how to motivate researchers or other user groups to enrich scientific outputs with metadata.
MARIA JOHNSSON: Yes, we look forward to hearing about your views and your ideas. So mate, the data could be here, there, and everywhere. Here, there, and everywhere. Here, there, and everywhere. Thank you.
MARIA JOHNSSON: And of course, credit to the Beatles here, there, and everywhere.
MARIA JOHNSSON: Thank you very much, Maria, for that great presentation. I always love a good Beatles reference and some nice bonus singing there. I think maybe we can start off with the two questions you proposed and have a good conversation having these different perspectives.
MARIA JOHNSSON: So thank you all for these presentations and I'm looking forward to a great discussion.
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode