Improving Discoverability,Avoiding Broken Links:Technologies of Opportunity for Extension Publishing

Mark Anderson-WilkExtension and Experiment Station CommunicationsOregon State University

2009 ACE-NETC ConferenceDes Moines, Iowa, June 7, 2009

Link rot

• Common, recognized problem

• Results in reduced discoverability and need for future maintenance

• Represents loss for resource seeker, resource publisher, and third-party referrer

Potential solutions

• Digital object identifiers

• Institutional repositories

• Some combination

Digital object identifiers

• Identifiers (unique, persistent names) vs. locators (Web addresses, URLs)

• Example: 10.1000/182

• Any type of digital media

• Any granularity

• DOI System, Handle System

DOI System

• Registration agencies CrossRef R.R. Bowker

• Publishers assign DOIs,

agencies deposit DOIs

• DOI resolution http://dx.doi.org/10.1000/182

Institutional repositories

• Access and preservation

• University communities contribute digital resources

• University library shares the digital asset management responsibilities

• DSpace example uses Handle System; other repositories use persistent URLs

Use

• 14.3% of Extension publishing units use DOIs

• At least 12 land-grant universities have some Extension materials in institutional repositories

• Inconsistent use of repositories perpetuates link rot

Cost

• DOI System too expensive for some Extension publishers

• Institutional repository represents university investment to benefit Extension publishing

Revenue potential

• DOIs can be used in conjunction with fee-for-access

• Repositories typically open access

Platform

• DOI System not a publishing platform itself, but a service to enhance existing publishing

• Institutional repositories can serve as publishing platform

• Repositories can be used in conjunction with Extension catalogs to distinguish current from archived material

Questions?

Mark Anderson-Wilk

mark.anderson-wilk@oregonstate.edu

541-737-0807