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