Integration of a National E-Theses Online Service with Institutional Repositories

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A related works session should be added, as there are initiatives from other counties such as NLTD from USA and BDTD from Brazil

Also, some background on CRIS - Current Research Information Systems would be an improvement to results significance, moving from a repository scope to a broader application scenario. Moreover, if possible, mention CERIF ontology and associate it with entities on figure 1.

@ line 48, "Some of the entities in this diagram are already typically assigned with PIDs, and some of the entities may require new PID types that are not yet fully adopted or developed." 

a table relating entities and PID types would improve and detail what is meant by `some`

@line 71 about "fuzzy matching techniques were used in other cases.", could please describe these methods more deeply or reference them? 

I suggest the publication of data extraction algorithms/scripts for record enrichment in order to allow replication of the approach in other scenarios.

@ line 146, add a comma to "The capture and recording of research data could happen during the actual PhD research, not after it removing the severe cost implications and the issues of data quality by extracting from full-text files."

The capture and recording of research data could happen 147 during the actual PhD research, not after it, removing the severe cost implications and the issues of  data quality by extracting from full-text files.

Some reference about "Authority control" in entity disambiguation (line 180) would enrich results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract (lines 9 – 15)

The abstract should be totally rewritten. The language used in the abstract obscures, rather than illuminating, what the paper is about. The worst phrases are “We present a use case” (no, you don’t, you present a project) and “novel ways of reasoning over research” (be more specific - you offer a way to visually analyze research connections). The project involves creating a graph with nodes connecting parts of the research and publication process, yet the word “graph” isn’t even used in the Abstract!

Introduction (lines 18 – 59)

The introduction section doesn’t provide enough background and context for non-UK readers. Readers shouldn’t have to Google “Diamond Light Source” and “FREYA” to understand what is going on. FREYA especially should be described in more detail, since the article appears to be describing a sub-project of FREYA.

The term “user story” is not one that American readers are familiar with. I would suggest using the term “user requirement” or rewriting the sentence completely to better convey the point.

Also I would recommend spelling out big numbers (“five hundred thousand”) rather than using numbers, since clearly the British delimiter format is different from the American one.

Metadata Sources (lines 60 – 98)

Most of your readers will not be familiar with Leventhstein distance and its application to this research. You need to find a way to explain your matching process using simpler terminology.

You should also explain what a “graph database” is.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf