I guess this is the workflow idea again, but stated another way. Don't get too hung up on "workflows", as in the e-science meaning (kepler, taverna et al). This is about making the repository fit in what people are trying to do, eg write the article, keep multiple versions, share with their colleagues in other institutions...
I guess that this is what we all want, because if repositories dont meet a real need for the user and fulfil it then there is little point inpursuing repositories.
BUT
That means identifiying a real need (not an ought), something that users feel that they are not currently achieving, and would like to. I have a suspicion that this might focus around the REF and the need to increase citations and have a way of reporting both output and impacts.
Tom, I think I'm saying something different: "work for" is not the same as "need". Not that you'll get some benefits after deposit, but that your life will be easier before deposit...
OK, I'm not sure if I've misread you, so it's possible we are in agreement here. You said: "That means identifiying a real need (not an ought), something that users feel that they are not currently achieving, and would like to. I have a suspicion that this might focus around the REF and the need to increase citations and have a way of reporting both output and impacts."
It may be just the examples in the second sentence, but they seemed to me the sort of remote, down-stream advantages we so often have seemed to be talking about with users. I wanted to get the repository to work for the user upstream, even before the research is published. Something that will actually make it easier to DO the research and WRITE the paper. This does tie in with your first sentence, of course...
Vote Up
Vote Down
Post New Comment
Close