Welcome to SFU.ca.
You have reached this page because we have detected you have a browser that is not supported by our web site and its stylesheets. We are happy to bring you here a text version of the SFU site. It offers you all the site's links and info, but without the graphics.
You may be able to update your browser and take advantage of the full graphical website. This could be done FREE at one of the following links, depending on your computer and operating system.
Or you may simply continue with the text version.

*Windows:*
FireFox (Recommended) http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/
Netscape http://browser.netscape.com
Opera http://www.opera.com/

*Macintosh OSX:*
FireFox (Recommended) http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/
Netscape http://browser.netscape.com
Opera http://www.opera.com/

*Macintosh OS 8.5-9.22:*
The only currently supported browser that we know of is iCAB. This is a free browser to download and try, but there is a cost to purchase it.
http://www.icab.de/index.html

Does having an article in one repository “hurt” its ranking or downloads in another?

James Donovan and Carol Watson (2012) tackle this question by looking at whether placing an article in an institutional repository hurts its ranking in a disciplinary repository. The authors argue that readers are not a zero-sum game, and so more readers for an article in one repository does not necessitate fewer readers for the same article in another repository.

Instead, different kinds of readers go to different kinds of repositories for different reasons. For example, a small but very interested group of readers will receive table of content alerts from the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). Other readers may have less interest in the subject area as a whole, and so will not have subscribed to alerts from a traditional repository. Instead, they want information from the article at a point of need, and arrive through a keyword search from Google. (Organ (2006) found that 95.8% of the downloads in their institutional repository came through Google). Donovan and Watson point out that institutional repositories are often listed in the first few Google results, while SSRN pages are listed later. This can be a crucial difference when readers may not go beyond the first page or two of search results. In addition, in two case studies, Donovan and Watson found that institutional repository readers tended to arrive in a steadier stream than the first group of readers, who peaked shortly after the article was announced in SSRN.

Thus, the argument is made that having an article in one repository does not hurt its ranking in another: more copies and more access points means more readers for the article.

For more information on institutional repositories, and other forms of self-archiving, look at eprints FAQs: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/

Donovan, J. M., & Watson, C. A. (2012). Will an institutional repository hurt my SSRN ranking?: Calming the faculty fear. AALL Spectrum, 16(6), 12-13.

Organ, M. K. (2006). Download statistics-what do they tell us? The example of research online, the open access institutional repository at the University of Wollongong, Australia. Academic Services Division-Papers, 44.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.