Importing your EndNote Items into the Repository

Due to the heavily customized nature of the University repository, the import from EndNote function relies on a purpose built import function, which has a few idiosyncrasies and limitations, which this blog post will discuss.

Limitation 1: Text Only

The software cannot import the binary file saved by the latest version of EndNote distributed by the university. This is typically saved with an .enl file extension (the compressed version ends .enlx).

In order to prepare your Endnote library for import into the repository, you need to export it in text Refer format as laid out below:

In the screenshots I’ve used the sample library provided with EndNote X7, the latest version available from the University

First, Select the items in the EndNote library you would like to include in the file to be imported or you can just choose to generate a file with everything in your endnote library included

Next, from the File menu, select Export

In the export options, choose to export in text format and for style, select another option

Choose the Refer Export format

Check that you have the ‘export selected references’ option ticked if you only want to save your selected items for import into the repository, otherwise untick this and your file will be created with all items in it.

Then go ahead and save your file.

Now in the repository you can import the file you have just created.

Limitation 2: StaffID are not added when you import from an external source

When you have imported a file, the StaffID that allow the association of a repository article with PoA and Web Profiles will not be present. Each article will require the contributor record checking and any University of Liverpool authors should have their StaffID added using the autocomplete function.

See the linked Blog Post on this

Idiosyncrasy: Warnings when running the importer

When the importer is  running, you may see warnings being emitted, such as in the screenshot below:

However, as long as the green status reports the correct number of items you were expecting you can safely ignore these warnings – we are working hard with our supplier to suppress these, but you can be assured they have no effect on the creation of item records within the repository

A new look to the repository

After a period of testing on the sandbox, the new look and feel front page of the repository has been made live, featuring a more streamlined look, relocated user menu options and always available search.

Thanks to everyone who provided any input.

As always, comments and feedback welcome on this post or to the author.

Uploading your papers - which version can be used?

One of the features of the Repository is that you can make a copy of your journal papers openly available on the web (usually after an embargo period determined by your publisher - see our Open Access guide for more details). Indeed, this will be a requirement for journal papers to be eligible for the next Research Excellence Framework.

However, in many cases you will not be allowed to upload the file of your journal article created by the publisher - the copyright in that version rests with the publisher, and we will not be allowed to make it publicly available. In cases such as these, a PDF or Word file of your own Author Accepted Manuscript, also known as a post-print, should be uploaded. This is your own file, incorporating changes made after peer review, but not including any publisher formatting.

How can I quickly tell which version I can upload to the Repository?
You can keep this simple by following this guidance:

• If a fee has been paid to make the article openly accessible on the publisher's website, you can upload the publisher version.
• If a fee has not been paid to make the article openly accessible on the publisher's website, you should only upload your own Author Accepted Manuscript.

Although there will be occasional exceptions to the second point above, this is the easiest way to determine which version of your paper can be uploaded.

Remember you can always get further information, and contact the Scholarly Communications Librarian, via the Open Access Guide.

Updating the repository's look and feel - we want your feedback

As part of our continual efforts to improve user interaction, we have redesigned the front page and menus of the University of Liverpool Repository. The redesign is now available for testing and comment on the training server, which can be found at:

http://tept.liv.ac.uk

Please note that as this is a test server, it cannot be accessed outside of the university network. Off campus access can be gained by using Apps Anywhere

The main changes that have been made are:

• The login and user functions have been incorporated into the left hand menu. This should give a more unified experience, with all links to actions now incorporated into the same place on screen.
• Search has also been moved to the left hand side, making it always available.
• A few small UI and functionality tweaks at the back end in response to various issues raised

We always welcome feedback - we are especially interested in hearing any views about this new front end before we make it live in the coming days. Please add them as a comment to this post, or send them via email to the author.

The University Repository Request Copy Spam

Recently the University Repository was the victim of a spammer using its inbuilt functions to send spam to a number of members of staff the following is a short report on the incident

How did it happen?

The attackers performed a search for all repository items with a full text document. They then individually requested each file. The files that are

restricted (embargoed) bring up a page, which allows the corresponding author to be sent a message. They wrote a script that injected the spam into this page and sent it.

Who?

The requests were from domains such as dynamic.isp.telekom.rs  - basically a free IP service in Serbia that effectively masks the computer which could be in any part of the world 

What?

What have we put in place in response to this? In short, we have removed the function - you now need to log in to see restricted files . . .

As far as we can tell from analysing the usage of the repository, the function had vanishingly small legitimate use, so we are not planning on re-enabling it. Please let us know in the comments below if this function is something that you would find useful and we can examine ways of sanitising (ensuring in future no spam is allowed through the text field) the form.

My Publications - why we've removed these potentially confusing links

When the repository was launched, initial testing identified the need for an easy way to find items from the TULIP publication database, or those that might be created by a colleague. Thus the ‘My Publications’ searches were created. Unfortunately, there has been some confusion about their purpose, so, as part of the recent upgrade, these options have been removed.

These links were essentially links to “canned searches” – they searched the repository to find records that include either your staff ID number or your name, with the results being the same as if you’d used the advanced search function available from the repository home page.

Often the search results for these two options differ slightly. This could be because staff ID numbers haven’t been included in some of the records, or your name might have been entered differently. In any case, the My Publications links were intended to be two quick ways for authors to find records that they are connected with, rather than a way of managing records.

The best way to keep track of your records in the repository is to look at your Manage Deposits page. All records with the status “Live Archive” are in the repository and will be available for you to select for your PDR and staff profile.

If you find that you’re really missing the My Publications links, please let us know as they can be brought back quite easily. By removing these potentially confusing links, we’re hoping that repository users will find the Manage Deposits screen much less daunting.

As ever, if you’re having any problems with the repository, please contact our IR team irhelp@liv.ac.uk. If you’d like to organise training for you or your colleagues, please contact Stephen Carlton stephen.carlton@liverpool.ac.uk. 

"That citation doesn't look right" - citation displays in the Repository

It’s sometimes remarked that the “citations” in the repository don’t look right – that they aren’t of a recognised format, or don’t correspond to a particular discipline’s style guidelines. The reason for this, and why we have surrounded the word “citations” with scare quotes is outlined below.

The main purpose of the Repository is to provide a way for published outputs to be made generally available, allowing the dissemination of research from institutional authors. So, the Repository in itself isn’t a citation database. Part of the impact of this is, for example, full names rather than initials being used for staff authors, which is a side effect of the processes necessary to link the Repository to PoA and other institutional processes. All of the information necessary to create a citation can be exported from the Repository, with users able to use that output to create their own citations with whatever tools they wish.

To display the information held about any individual item, the Repository generates a pseudo-citation display, using one overall style. Given the many different disciplines at Liverpool it is impossible to settle on one specific citation style to use as a model that would be acceptable to all, so a generic style has been selected.

We hope that this addresses concerns about the appearance of publication details in the Repository, and welcome feedback on this issue either as comments on these blog posts or via email to irhelp@liv.ac.uk.