Problems in Metadata Quality
Metadata quality is not something to take lightly. Without accurate and standardized records, researchers cannot retrieve the valuable resources that they desire. While searches can still be performed if poor metadata records exist, the results yielded may be lacking in value as they will not encompass everything that an institution has to offer. It is because of instances like this that librarians and publishers alike must ensure that metadata records are of high quality, standardized to a set format, frequently inspected for errors, and updated to reflect any changes to the materials.
In "Achieving and Maintaining Metadata Quality: Toward a Sustainable Workflow for the IDEALS Institutional Repository," Ayla Stein, Kelly Applegate, and Seth Robbins describe why metadata quality issues arise. They believe that "there are five universal metadata problems: 'Incorrect Values, Incorrect Elements, Missing Information, Information Loss, and Inconsistent Value Representation.'" (Stein, Applegate, & Robbins, 2017) While these problems result in poor metadata quality, they all come about due to repurposed records, limited budgets, and a lack of standardized practices.
When pre-made records get added into an institution's repository, catalogers are trusting that the information is accurate and of high-quality. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. While there are established guidelines on what goes into a record, a cataloger may not know if those records are accurate and error-free before inspection or upload. By batch uploading records, errors will not be caught, and they will be transferred into the repository. The only way to prevent these errors is by performing frequent quality checks of the metadata or vetting records before entering them into the repository. Sadly, this is a labor-intensive project, and a limited budget can stand in the way of an institution enacting these practices.
Each record must be periodically checked to ensure they remain free of errors. This does not seem like a difficult task to perform, but when a limited budget exists, staffing becomes the issue at hand. According to Stein, Applegate, and Robbins, "A few institutions reported that quality checking was done on an ad-hoc basis due to budgetary concerns, with certain collections receiving prioritized attention." (Stein et al., 2017) Without monetary backing, an institution cannot fund the properly trained staff members needed to perform quality checks. These checks cannot be performed by just any professional or paraprofessional; an institution must have trained individuals qualified to check and revise records so that they are updated correctly. If this is not considered, and the task is offhanded to someone without the proper training, records that were once searchable despite their errors could become unavailable to researchers altogether. Certain guidelines must be followed when amending metadata; these practices alone will be the only way to improve records and make them available during searches.
Staying up to date on metadata standards is a key component of a cataloger's job. Without knowledge of the current guidelines, a cataloger will fail to update a record accurately or fail to notice any pre-existing errors. Even if a cataloger is up to date on metadata standards, it can be difficult to maintain high-quality records without content description guidelines (Stein et al., 2017). Failing to have a "community developed best practice for content description of institutional repository materials" can result in low-quality metadata that prevents computer systems from retrieving the information a researcher desires.
In the Stein, Applegate, and Robbins article, we get to learn more about metadata quality issues. While there are many reasons that a record remains of poor quality, the main problems stem from three key issues: limited budgets, repurposed records, and a lack of standardized practices. Within each of these limitations, an institutional repository has numerous issues that prevent records from being deemed high-quality. It is up to an institution to allocate funding for repositories that enable them to perform periodic tests and update metadata as it is needed. This is not a solution to resolving metadata quality, but it is a step in the right direction if an institution is to make its records searchable by all. After all, without accurate and reliable metadata, a search could fail to pull the records that a researcher truly desires.
References
Stein, A., Applegate, K. J., & Robbins, S. (2017). Achieving and Maintaining Metadata Quality: Toward a Sustainable Workflow for the IDEALS Institutional Repository. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 55(7–8), 644–666. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2017.1358786
In "Achieving and Maintaining Metadata Quality: Toward a Sustainable Workflow for the IDEALS Institutional Repository," Ayla Stein, Kelly Applegate, and Seth Robbins describe why metadata quality issues arise. They believe that "there are five universal metadata problems: 'Incorrect Values, Incorrect Elements, Missing Information, Information Loss, and Inconsistent Value Representation.'" (Stein, Applegate, & Robbins, 2017) While these problems result in poor metadata quality, they all come about due to repurposed records, limited budgets, and a lack of standardized practices.
When pre-made records get added into an institution's repository, catalogers are trusting that the information is accurate and of high-quality. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. While there are established guidelines on what goes into a record, a cataloger may not know if those records are accurate and error-free before inspection or upload. By batch uploading records, errors will not be caught, and they will be transferred into the repository. The only way to prevent these errors is by performing frequent quality checks of the metadata or vetting records before entering them into the repository. Sadly, this is a labor-intensive project, and a limited budget can stand in the way of an institution enacting these practices.
Each record must be periodically checked to ensure they remain free of errors. This does not seem like a difficult task to perform, but when a limited budget exists, staffing becomes the issue at hand. According to Stein, Applegate, and Robbins, "A few institutions reported that quality checking was done on an ad-hoc basis due to budgetary concerns, with certain collections receiving prioritized attention." (Stein et al., 2017) Without monetary backing, an institution cannot fund the properly trained staff members needed to perform quality checks. These checks cannot be performed by just any professional or paraprofessional; an institution must have trained individuals qualified to check and revise records so that they are updated correctly. If this is not considered, and the task is offhanded to someone without the proper training, records that were once searchable despite their errors could become unavailable to researchers altogether. Certain guidelines must be followed when amending metadata; these practices alone will be the only way to improve records and make them available during searches.
Staying up to date on metadata standards is a key component of a cataloger's job. Without knowledge of the current guidelines, a cataloger will fail to update a record accurately or fail to notice any pre-existing errors. Even if a cataloger is up to date on metadata standards, it can be difficult to maintain high-quality records without content description guidelines (Stein et al., 2017). Failing to have a "community developed best practice for content description of institutional repository materials" can result in low-quality metadata that prevents computer systems from retrieving the information a researcher desires.
In the Stein, Applegate, and Robbins article, we get to learn more about metadata quality issues. While there are many reasons that a record remains of poor quality, the main problems stem from three key issues: limited budgets, repurposed records, and a lack of standardized practices. Within each of these limitations, an institutional repository has numerous issues that prevent records from being deemed high-quality. It is up to an institution to allocate funding for repositories that enable them to perform periodic tests and update metadata as it is needed. This is not a solution to resolving metadata quality, but it is a step in the right direction if an institution is to make its records searchable by all. After all, without accurate and reliable metadata, a search could fail to pull the records that a researcher truly desires.
References
Stein, A., Applegate, K. J., & Robbins, S. (2017). Achieving and Maintaining Metadata Quality: Toward a Sustainable Workflow for the IDEALS Institutional Repository. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 55(7–8), 644–666. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2017.1358786
I like your connecting of poor metadata with bad retrieval outcomes! This is really important and reminds me of the dreaded mis-shelved book that no one can ever find (except shelf readers, of course :) ). One strength of this article is its framing of the addressing of this problem in a workflow context and the need for the establishment of community-wide quality practices (especially in IR community ... we gotta get our procedures correct!
ReplyDeleteGood work!
Dr. MacCall