Quality checks on metadata submissions – are they Conditio-sine-qua-non for providing open access to publications?
Or are they best offered as a service in the background – even after OA publication?
Obviously, librarians and scientists do have different criteria for a „quality assurance“ of metadata submissions. Workflow-based quality checks support the quality of data provided. They are a highly-demanded feature in distributed deposit scenarios. However, restrictive workflows, complemented with restrictive validation rules, are a frustrating experience for any depositor…and might finally inhibit (open access) publishing in repositories.
While there is an editing phase, it is „their“ repository.
Without an editing phase it is „my“ repository.
(Hugh Glasner, Computer Scientist@University of Southampton)
Check the complete mail-thread here:
Might be worth considering when deciding for your local PubMan settings- especially when considering the most effective combination of online and offline workflows …at the end, it is all about „mine“ and „yours“ and the smooth transition inbetween;-)