Download (PDF, 9MB, Not barrier-free file.) - Nestor

institution can be trusted – e.g. trusted to be the author of a work and/or to have the rightto publish it through the repository. Although there are different possible ways ofauthenticating a user (see above), none of these is currently used at pedocs, mainlybecause there is a concern not to create too many obstacles/hindrances that might keepauthors from submitting their works to the repository. In contrast to other types ofrepositories, as a subject repository pedocs is not in the convenient situation that its usersalready have an ID and/or password, e.g. for the use of other services. Thus, for arepository belonging to the services offered by a University Library it can be comparablyeasy to (re-)use the ID and password its patrons already have (e.g. for the use of thelibrary's on- and offline services) as a means of user authentication with the repository –an approach taken by the TU Hamburg-Harburg, for example. As a disciplinary repository,pedocs does not have such infrastructure ready at hand. This is relatively uncritical wherepedocs enters into direct contact with producers, as is the case, for example, with manypublishers approached by the repository. However, where contact between repository andsubmitting person is only based on e-mail, authenticating the source of submitted materialremains a problem.pedocs is addressing this problem with its newly drafted author agreement, which willhave to be accepted by submitting authors in a double opt-in procedure in the future. 92Thus, producers will have to confirm in a contract (author agreement) that they have therights to publish the document in question with pedocs. They e-mail the contract topedocs, are notified that the contract was received by the repository, and have to confirmagain that they intended to submit the contract. This procedure cannot offer the sameconfirmation of the identity of the depositor as, for example, the creation of user accountsin combination with digital signatures. Yet depositors do close a contract with pedocs bysubmitting the agreement, in which they ascertain that they are who they claim to be – i.e.the person holding the necessary rights to publish the submitted document with pedocs –,and this does offer some (if limited) assurance concerning the authenticity of the source.In the process of conceptualizing and developing pedocs, a further problem wasidentified just recently, which also touches upon the question of authenticity or, moreprecisely, the question of how accurate a representation of the submitted “original” objectthe pedocs record and the document attached to it are. This question concernspublications that were digitized by pedocs (or a third party service provider) and thatunderwent OCR in the digitization process. Depending on the quality of the original printeddocument, OCR may misrecognize characters, which will lead to an inaccuraterepresentation of the original text. According to Tanner, Muñoz and Ros,92 Currently authors have to accept the following shorter agreement when submitting their documents to therepository through the web interface: “Ich übertrage dem Deutschen Institut für InternationalePädagogische Forschung (DIPF) sowie der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek in Frankfurt bzw. Leipzig und derzuständigen Sondersammelgebietsbibliothek das Recht, das/die übermittelte/n Dokument/e elektronischzu speichern und in Datennetzen öffentlich zugänglich zu machen. Ich übertrage dem DIPF ferner dasRecht zur Konvertierung der übertragenen Datei zum Zwecke der Langzeitarchivierung unter Beachtungder Bewahrung des Inhalts. Die Originalarchivierung bleibt erhalten” (http://www.pedocs.de/uni/index.php –11.10.2009).33