Metadata matters: evaluating the quality of Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) descriptions in Malaysian institutional repositories

Article Sidebar

FULLTEXT
Published: May 11, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol28no1.7
Keywords:
Quality assessment Metadata quality Institutional repositories Electronic Theses and Dissertations Dublin Core metadata schema

Main Article Content

Raudhah Osman
Dar al-Hikmah Library, International Islamic University Malaysia
Yanti Idaya A.M.K.
Department of Library and Information Science, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Universiti Malaya
Abrizah A.
Department of Library and Information Science, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Universiti Malaya

Abstract

This study investigates the quality of metadata records in institutional repositories for Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) in three Malaysian research universities. The study employs metrics derived from Bruce and Hillmann (2004) to evaluate the completeness, accuracy, and consistency of 1138 metadata records from the three institutional repositories, and utilizes quantitative content analysis to identify variants of Dublin Core metadata elements used to describe ETDs. The study uncovers a range of issues with metadata completeness, accuracy, and consistency, emphasizing the need for standardized systems to ensure quality metadata. By highlighting the importance of quality metadata for ETD collections, the study provides valuable insights for academic libraries in designing and describing ETD collections. Overall, this study sheds light on the current metadata practices and elements used in ETD collections, and underscores the significance of effective metadata management for the dissemination and discoverability of scholarly works.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Osman, R., Yanti Idaya A.M.K., & Abrizah A. (2023). Metadata matters: evaluating the quality of Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) descriptions in Malaysian institutional repositories. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 28(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol28no1.7
Issue
Vol. 28 No. 1 (2023): Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science
Section
Articles

It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to the journal have not been published, accepted for publication, nor simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere. By submitting a manuscript, the author(s) agree that copyright for the article is transferred to the publisher, if and when the manuscript is accepted for publication.

References

Aissi, S. and Sboui, T. 2017. Towards evaluating geospatial metadata quality in the context of VGI. Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 109:686–91. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.05.377.

Al-Khalifa, H.S. and Davis, H.C. 2006. The evolution of metadata from standards to semantics in e-learning applications. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, Odense, Denmark, 69-72. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Bellini, E. and Nesi, P. 2013. Metadata quality assessment tool for open access cultural heritage institutional repositories. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 7990 LNCS: 90–103. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40050-6_9.

Bruce, T. R., and Hillmann, D. I. 2004. Metadata in practice. In The Continuum of Metadata Quality: Defining, Expressing, Exploiting, 238–236. Chicago: American Library Association.

Bui, Y. and Park, J.R. 2013. An assessment of metadata quality: a case study of the National Science Digital Library metadata repository. Proceedings of Information Science Revisited Approaches to Innovation / Actes Du congrès Annuel De l’ACSI., 1–13. Available at: http://idea.library.drexel.edu/handle/1860/1600.

Chuttur, M.Y. 2014. Investigating the effect of definitions and best practice guidelines on errors in Dublin Core metadata records. Journal of Information Science, Vol. 40, no. 1: 28–37. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551513507405.

Currier, S., Barton, J., O’Beirne, R. and Ryan, B. 2004. Quality assurance for digital learning object repositories: issues for the metadata creation process. ALT-J Reesearch in Learning Technology, Vol. 12, no. 1: 5–20. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0968776042000211494.

Downe-Wamboldt, B. 1992. Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, Vol. 13, no. 3: 313–21.

Kenfield, A.S. 2019. Metadata documentation practices at ARL institutional repositories. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 19, no. 4: 667–99. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2019.0041.

Krejcie, R. V. and Morgan, D.W. 1970. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 30: 607–10. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308.

Mayernik, M.S. 2019. Metadata accounts: achieving data and evidence in scientific research. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 49, no. 5: 732–57. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719863494.

McClelland, M., McArthur, D., Giersch, S. and Geisler, G. 2002. Challenges for service providers when importing metadata in digital libraries. D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 8, no. 4. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1045/april2002-mcclelland.

Mering, M. 2019. Transforming the quality of metadata in institutional repositories. Serials Librarian, Vol. 76, no. 1–4: 79–82. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0361526X.2019.1540270.

Moen, W.E., Stewart, E.L. and McClure, C.R. 1998. Assessing metadata quality: findings and methodological considerations from an evaluation of the US Government Information Locator Service (GILS). Proceedings IEEE International Forum on Research and Technology Advances in Digital Libraries -ADL’98-, 246–55. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/ADL.1998.670425.

Moen, W.E., Stewart, E.L. and McClure, C.R. 1997. The role of content analysis in evaluating metadata for the US Government Information Locator Service (GILS): results from an exploratory study. IEEE Computer Society Metadata Conference, 1--14. New York, NY: IEEE.

Palavitsinis, N., Manouselis, N. and Sanchez-Alonso, S. 2014. Metadata quality in learning object repositories: a case study. Electronic Library, Vol. 32, no. 1: 62–82. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/el-12-2011-0175.

Park, E.G. and Richard, M. 2011. Metadata assessment in E-Theses and Dissertations of Canadian institutional repositories. Electronic Library, Vol. 29, no. 3: 394–407. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471111141124.

Park, J.R. 2009. Metadata quality in digital repositories: a survey of the current state of the art. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Vol. 47, no. 3–4: 213–28. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639370902737240.

Park, J.R. and Tosaka, Y. 2010. Metadata quality control in digital repositories and collections: criteria, semantics, and mechanisms. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, Vol. 48, no. 8: 696–715. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2010.508711.

Pelaez, R. 2017. Metadata quality assessment metrics into OCW repositories.” In ICETC 2017: Proceedings of the 2017 9th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers, 253–57. Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3175536.3175579.

Ramdas Lihitkar, S. and Lihitkar, R.S. 2014. Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) in India: a comparative study. Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 31, no.2: 9–14. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-10-2013-0061.

Random.Org. 2018. Random Integer Generator. Available at: https://www.random.org/integers/.

Reiche, K.J. and Höfig, E. 2013. Implementation of metadata quality metrics and application on public government data. IEEE 37th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference Workshops, Japan, pp. 236-241. Available at: doi: 10.1109/COMPSACW.2013.32.

Romero-Pelaez, A., Segarra-Faggioni, V. and Alarcon, P.P. 2018. Exploring the provenance and accuracy as metadata quality metrics in assessment resources of OCW repositories. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 292–96. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290511.3290540.

Sharifah Nur Amirah, S.A. 2017. Conceptions and practices of metadata quality for FRBR user tasks resources discovery in institutional repositories. [Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, International Islamic University Malaysia]. IIUM Repository (IRep). Available at: http://irep.iium.edu.my/74362/.

Steele, T. and Sump-Crethar, N. 2016. Metadata for Electronic Theses and Dissertations: a survey of institutional repositories. Journal of Library Metadata, Vol. 16, no. 1: 53–68. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2016.1161462.

Weagley, J., Gelches, E. and Park, J.R. 2010. Interoperability and metadata quality in digital video repositories: a study of Dublin Core. Journal of Library Metadata, Vol. 10, no. 1: 37–57. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386380903546984.

Wilson, A. J. 2007. Toward releasing the metadata bottleneck: a baseline evaluation of contributor-supplied metadata. Library Resources & Technical Services, Vol. 51, no. 1: 16–28. Available at: https://journals.ala.org/index.php/lrts/article/view/5384/6604.

Yasser, C.M. 2011. An analysis of problems in metadata records. Journal of Library Metadata, Vol. 11, no. 2: 51–62. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2011.570654.

Yasser, C.M. 2012. An experimental study of metadata training effectiveness on errors in metadata records. Journal of Library Metadata, Vol. 12, no. 4: 372–95. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2012.735573.

Zavalin, V., Zavalina, O.L. and Miksa, S.D. 2021. Exploration of subject representation and support of linked data in recently created library metadata: examination of most widely held WorldCat bibliographic records. Library Resources & Technical Services, Vol. 65, no. 4: 154–167. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.65n4.154.