Abstract

The aim of this poster is to analyze name authority control in two institutional repositories to determine the extent to which faculty researchers are represented in researcher identifier databases. A purposive sample of 50 faculty authors from Florida Southern College (FSC) and Ryerson University (RU) were compared against five different authority databases: Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF), Scopus, Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID), Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), and International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI). We first analyzed the results locally, then compared them between the two institutions. The findings show that while LCNAF and Scopus results are comparable between the two institutions, the difference in the ORCID, VIAF, and ISNI are considerable. Additionally, the results show that the majority of authors at each institution are represented in two or three external databases. This has implications for enhancing local authority data by linking to external identifier authority data to augment institutional repository metadata.

Highlights

  • In this digital age, computers require more direction than humans in terms of name disambiguation (Van der Graaf, M. & Waaijers, L., 2014)

  • Reviewing the Florida Southern College (FSC) results, we found that all but 3 authors were represented in a database, with an overall of 86% represented in Scopus, 36% in Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), 30% in Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF), 30% in International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI), and 12% in Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID)

  • Analyzing the database representation at FSC, we determined that 6% of the authors were not represented in any database, 36% were represented in one database, 24% represented in two databases, 22% in three databases, 12% in four databases, and there was no author representation in all five databases

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Computers require more direction than humans in terms of name disambiguation (Van der Graaf, M. & Waaijers, L., 2014). The online environment of IRs offers an opportunity to harness persistent identifier and linked data initiatives and evolve beyond traditional bibliographic data silos to embrace openauthor identifiers With an FTE of 35,000 across more than 100 undergraduate and graduate programs, Ryerson has close to 900 full-time faculty members including 20 Canada Research Chairs. Both institutions have IRs situated within their libraries that contain faculty research. Designed initially for self-submission of faculty research, metadata workflows in IRs are often lacking the functionality to ensure best practices, in the area of authority control (Salo, D., 2009).

Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.