An international, multistakeholder survey about metadata awareness, knowledge, and use in scholarly communications
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21255976 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kathryn A Kaiser (0000-0002-6258-4369, University of Alabama at Birmingham), Michelle Urberg (0000-0002-2748-811X, Independent Researcher and Maverick Publishing Specialists), Maria Johnsson (0000-0001-6650-359X, Lund University), Jennifer Kemp (0000-0003-4086-3196, Crossref), Alice Meadows (0000-0003-2161-3781, National Information Standards Organization), Laura Paglione (0000-0003-3188-6273, Metadata 2020, Spherical Cow Group) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 2 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 454-473 |
| Publication date | 2021-07-15 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Quantitative Science Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2641-3337 • E-ISSN: 2641-3337 |
| Publisher | MIT Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1162/qss_a_00133 |
| OpenAlex | W3158349255 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 14 |
The Metadata 2020 initiative is an ongoing effort to bring various scholarly communications stakeholder groups together to promote principles and standards of practice to improve the quality of metadata. To understand the perspectives and practices regarding metadata of the main stakeholder groups (librarians, publishers, researchers, and repository managers), we conducted a survey during summer 2019. The survey content was generated by representatives from the stakeholder groups. A link to an online survey (17 or 18 questions depending on the group) was distributed through multiple social media, listserv, and blog outlets. Responses were anonymous, with an optional entry for names and email addresses for those who were willing to be contacted later. Complete responses (N = 211; 87 librarians, 27 publishers, 48 repository managers, and 49 researchers) representing 23 countries on four continents were analyzed and summarized for thematic content and ranking of awareness and practices. Across the stakeholder groups, the level of awareness and usage of metadata methods and practices was highly variable. Clear gaps across the groups point to the need for consolidation of schema and practices, as well as broad educational efforts to increase knowledge and implementation of metadata in scholarly communications
Business · Geospatial metadata · Knowledge management · Meta Data Services · Metadata · Metadata repository · Political science · Public relations · Publishing · Qualitative research · Scholarly communication · Social media · Social science · Sociology · Stakeholder · Thematic analysis · World Wide Web · Computer Science · Digital and Traditional Archives Management · Research Data Management Practices · Scientific Computing and Data Management
| Highly cited | No |
|---|