« 00022 · Edit Form · 00024 »

Summary: Facility Input Mask: Responsible Person / Institution
Type: Usage

Priority (1<5) = 4
Status: Open

Raised by: Helga Willer
Project: CORE Organic
Related to
Date opened: 2005–08–07
Assigned to hal
Hours used (estimates in brackets) =
Date closed:

Description:
Even though the Responsible Person, Institution and Department can be entered in the input mask these are not shown in the “output” mask.

Addition from Helga. 26–11–2009
Output mask, perhaps not the correct term, but what we mean is what users see in the end.
This is still an issue, I am not sure though with which Eprint types.
- Eprint type REPORT: Does not show up properly in the citation list. See http://orgprints.org/15397/. Even though the publishing institution is mentioned in the metadata, it does not appear in the citation. And it does not appear in the public part of the metadata that this report was made by FiBL.
- Eprint type WORKING PAPER – I consider that as a similar category as report, but here all is fine – the publishing institution is visible.
- Eprint Type REPORT CHAPTER: here again the citation and the visible metadata are not complete. The publishing institution or the series is missing.
- Eprint Type BOOK CHAPTER: Similar case as report chapter, but here it is fine.

So there is a problem with the citations, and we were wondering what citiation standard is behind organic eprints ? There is good standard here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BibTeX - Should we use this to check if the indvidual Eprints citation types are complete – the list above is only a start regarding what it is missing (but it would be good if you could fix the reports already now).

This is a very important issue for scientists, we need to have the information in endnote export, so that scientists can use this for their literature lists. (endnote is also mentioned in other ecowikis. see 93 and 16)