Archive in der Zukunft
Archive von unten
... weitere
Weblog abonnieren


English Corner

"The Harvard Library is pleased to announce a new policy on the use of digital reproductions of works in the public domain. When the Library makes such reproductions and makes them openly available online, it will treat the reproductions themselves as objects in the public domain. It will not try to restrict what users can do with them, nor will it grant or deny permission for any use."

This is something which really ought to be a matter of course.

See also (this should be a library website)

See also


This paper traces the collection development of the Lesbian Herstory Archives, a community based repository founded in 1974. I argue that the collection grew organically as a reflection of a dialogue between an evolving cohort of volunteer archivists and a community of donors. Primarily focusing on the first five years, this paper pinpoints key early decisions made by volunteer archivists. Specifically, I examine the Archives’ early collecting priorities and the introduction of the special collections in 1978. These decisions, I argue, laid the foundation for the Lesbian Herstory Archives and continue to shape it today, forty years later.
Recommended Citation

Corbman, Rachel F. (2014) "A Genealogy of the Lesbian Herstory Archives, 1974-2014," Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies: Vol. 1, Article 1.
Available at:

First article of the new (Open Access????) journal.

"Soon after the beginning of the Iraq War, soldiers in Baghdad stumbled upon a treasury of Jewish Iraqi manuscripts in a flooded basement. The collection consisted of 2,700 books and tens of thousands of documents chronicling the 2,500-year-old Jewish community. The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration restored the physical documents, digitized the pages and published them online with little fanfare. "


"Dear Colleagues,

The purpose of this mail is to present our latest working paper, deposited on
July 24, 2014.​​

We propose the inextricable task of knowing the size of this huge black hole
looks like Google Scholar (GS). Anyway, as the title of the document
(​​About the size of Google Scholar: playing the numbers), we have begun to
make accounts and using 4 different empirical methods we estimate that the
number of unique documents (different versions of a document are excluded)
should not be less than 160 million (as of May 2014).

Regardless of this particular outcome, which is itself significant (especially
when compared with other scientific databases, and that gives us key clues
about the amount of scientific knowledge that can be searchable, found and
accessed to on the web), even more exciting is the methodological challenge of
this assumption. It has not only forced us to devise various techniques for
measuring the size of this dark object that GS is, but ​also ​applying them
we have shed light, again, on various inconsistencies, uncertainties and
limitations of the search interface tools used by Google. In short, we have
learned more about what Google Scholar does or does not, and we want to share
it with you all.

This research comes at a good time. We are not only almost celebrating the 10th
anniversary of GS but also hearing some voices (from somewhere in Europe…)
finally relying on the use of Google Scholar for scientific evaluation.

Now, when empirical studies
( demonstrate
every day that Google Scholar and its derivatives

a) measure with similar credit to traditional bibliometric indicators,

b) are the most used products by scientists

c) have unfortunately ended up with the competition (Microsoft Academic Search
is in an unexplained hibernation,​.​

seems that certain euphoria unleashed. We are pleased, better late than

However, without wanting to lower the aroused expectations, we emphasize that
the problems of Google Scholar for scientific evaluation are not technical or
methodological (coverage, reliability and validity of the measures, records
filtering performance…). Seminal limitations are those related with:

a) the ease with which GS indicators can be manipulated​

b) the transience of the results and measures (in many cases difficult to
replicate stably),

c) the technological dependence on companies that develop tools that come and
go on the consumer product market

Google Scholar enthusiasts are now welcome; meanwhile we will continue
vigorously in which we already proposed several years ago: to reveal with
“data” ​- ​and not mere opinions​ -​, the bowels of Google Scholar,
and to reveal at the same time their strengths and weaknesses. So, like the old
serials published, we can only promise...TO BE CONTINUED…


Enrique Orduña-Malea​
​Polytechnic University of Valencia​

​​Emilio Delgado López-Cózar
Universidad de Granada​" (SCHOLCOMM list) AGB

xml version of this page

xml version of this topic

powered by Antville powered by Helma