UoL Library Blog

Develop, debate, innovate.

UK Institutional Repository Rankings – July 2009 Edition

Posted by gazjjohnson on 3 August, 2009

The Webometrics site  half yearly update of their ranking of world repositories is available.  For information on how they calculate their metric see here.  For further interest here’s the ranking of the top UK based institutional repositories, I’ve put their global score in brackets at the end, and those with mandates (as listed on ROARMAP)  in italics.

  1. University of Cambridge (22)
  2. University of Oxford (42)
  3. University College London (51)
  4. University of Edinburgh (71)
  5. University of Southampton (74)
  6. University of Warwick (123)
  7. University of Glasgow (131)
  8. University of Manchester (160)
  9. University of Leeds (White Rose) (167)
  10. University of Birmingham (187)
  11. University of Nottingham (212)
  12. LSE (215)
  13. Open University (222)
  14. Imperial College (225)
  15. University of Bristol (232)
  16. University of York (White Rose) (239)
  17. Newcastle University (253)
  18. Lancaster University (261)
  19. University of Sheffield (265)
  20. Durham University (302)
  21. King’s College London (255)
  22. University of Bath (309)
  23. University of Essex (328)
  24. Herriot-Watt University (344)
  25. University of Liverpool (366)
  26. University of Aberdeen (373)
  27. University of St Andrews (376)
  28. University of Leicester (383)
  29. University of Surrey (406)
  30. University of Kent (424)
  31. University of Strathclyde (438)
  32. UEA (476)
  33. Cardiff University (478)
  34. University of Sussex (486)
  35. University of Reading (494)
  36. Loughborough University (499)
  37. University of Exeter (501)
  38. Queen Mary University of London (518)
  39. Manchester Metropolitan University (527)
  40. Queen’s University Belfast (537)
  41. Aberystwyth (547)
  42. University of Dundee (592)
  43. University of Brighton (626)
  44. Royal Holloway (628)
  45. De Montfort University (640)
  46. University of Stirling (644)
  47. City University London (669)
  48. University of Salford (671)
  49. Brunel University (678)
  50. University of Westminster (685)

You can see the whole list of UK Institutional Repositories’ ranks here.  Contrasted with last timethe LRA has dropped down the list somewhat – with detailed metrics for our repository giving us the following changes in the sub-rankings for Leicester.

  July 09 Jan 09
Size 877 222
Visibility 378 186
Rich Files 363 125
Scholarly 422 125

 The most drastic change seems to be in terms of size, where a lot of repositories have clearly begun to be filled at a considerably advanced rate.  How the recent mandate at Leicester will affect these figures in the next 6 months will bear watching.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “UK Institutional Repository Rankings – July 2009 Edition”

  1. It’s an excellent idea to rank institutional repositories (IRs), and Webometrics is to be commended for doing this a first pass.

    However, ranking IRs on the base of total items deposited is next to useless. Some repositories are used just to store internal administrative documents.

    The critical parameters that are needed to make these rankings in any way meaningful are:

    (1) Document type, in particular, unrefereed preprints and refereed postprints.

    (2) Confirmation of full text deposit (not just metadata).

    (3) Year of document creation/publication.

    (4) Year of deposit.

    (5) Institution size.

    (6) Institution’s annual research paper output.

    At the very least, the ranking needs to be based on the number of full-texts in category (1).

    Otherwise these rankings make no distinction between the target contents of the Open Access Movement and any sort of digital file an institution might choose to archive. (No one, for example, would have been interested in a ranking of universities in terms of the number of items in their departmental-proceedings record archive…)

    Some (but by no means all) of these data are available for ranking via ROAR: http://roar.eprints.org/

    Stevan Harnad

    • Cheers for those thoughts Stevan, I have some issues with the way Webometrics seems to calculate the scores myself too. Here’s hoping someone will start to work on a more rigerous analysis of the repository metrics in the near future!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this:
https://uollibraryblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/uk-repository-rankings-july-edition-2009/
uollibraryblog.wordpress.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-09
70502
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:KG4PQWIG5C24K565AEYNEGLQ2B2MPRAZ
<urn:uuid:483c4ddf-fb4b-4588-9d5d-22e1049bb6cf>
2017-02-21T18:58:24Z
192.0.78.12
sha1:N344MJH6U5F6W5M7HSJFNKAHRESHOGAT
<urn:uuid:a2728228-d3f2-4eb7-bab2-4b2ad1c9a53e>
https://uollibraryblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/uk-repository-rankings-july-edition-2009/
length
response
<urn:uuid:8010eae6-0339-4030-8af3-ad61701ee03e>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-171-10-108.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-09
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for February 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf