Just by way of background, here is some of the relevant conversation, so you all know what the issues are
Simon Porter said:
…. the DEST category code could be derived from other metadata against the record at reporting time. This would be a nontrivial exercise, but it would be an alternative to essentially translating information that is already in the record at data entry time.
One of the reasons that deriving DEST category codes might be a good idea if you were considering using a repository for HERDC reporting is that in most publication reporting systems, the attribution of DEST categories to publications is highly controlled and audited. One of the reasons for this is that these DEST codes have an impact on the amount of funding that is returned to a University. The assignation of DEST category codes is often entered by administrators, and then signed off on by heads of department. (This at least is the University of Melbourne experience). If this sort of workflow is difficult to implement in a repository, then deriving the DEST category codes from publication metadata using established business rules might be a more appropriate method of enforcing rigour around the reporting of DEST category codes.
Tom Ruthven replied:
UNSW uses a similar assignation of DEST codes as University of Melbourne (entered by administrators, and then signed off on by heads of department). However, as the codes are auditable information I’d prefer to store the code used for the DEST return rather than re-calculate it for an auditor. Initially the code could be calculated but I would prefer it to be stored as the code.
Angela Lang asked how the calculation might be done.
Katie Blake answered that it might be something along the lines of IF resource type=journal article AND type=peer-reviewed THEN DEST Category = A1
Simon Porter responded that
For journals it would probably end up being:
IF resource type=journal article and journal name belongs to a pre approved list THEN DEST category = Blah
The reason there might need to be a pre approved list is that in general the university is responsible for coordinating what it considers to be a peer reviewed journal. Having a pre approved list is another way of putting a control process around the process of deciding what is considered as peer reviewed for the purposes of DEST reporting. Up until 2006, DEST maintained a pre approved list…
I think the rules would get pretty tricky pretty quickly, but I raised it mostly to make the point that recording the code is probably the easy bit. It’s enforcing all the business processes around the recording of the codes that might make the use of a repository as a sole HERDC reporting device very challenging.
Tom raised auditing, which is a good point. After a head of department has signed off on the records, those records cannot be changed without an audit trail that results in a hod re approval step. I’m not sure how this would be managed purely in a repository environment. Happy to be told otherwise.
Tom Ruthven then came back with
Although this is not directly related to MACAR’s work I am not sure everything can be calculated using standard descriptive metadata.
For example, a B1 criteria (for book chapters) includes “must have been published by a commercial publisher”, where “For the purposes of these specifications, a commercial publisher is an entity for which the core business is producing books and distributing them for sale. If publishing is not the core business of an organisation but there is a distinct organisational entity devoted to commercial publication and its publications are not completely paid for or subsidised by the parent organisation or a third party, the publisher is acceptable as a commercial publisher.” Only the publisher name is generally recorded not whether it is a “commercial publisher”, e.g. Tom Ruthven Vainglorious Publishing Company does not tell me if it is a commercial publisher J
Fiona Burton 1213253201|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
