Inspired by TBL Star rating system, OAM has devised its own rating schema: (See also guidance notes on how to use the star system at the bottom of this page)
GUIDANCE ON HOW TO RANK WEBSITES USING THE STAR SYSTEM The star system proposed above serves purely as a guideline to assess and heuristically measure (rule of thumb) the level of adoption of Knowledge Sharing and Open Access practices. It is suggested that a ranking can be calculated by 'adding' the number of stars cumulatively. The lowest rank is zero (no stars) The highest rank is 22 (has all the stars) NOTE: THE SIXTH STAR WAS ADDED 3 AUGUST 2011, AUDITS CARRIED OUT BEFORE THIS DATE ONLY HAVE A MAX OF 16 STARS (hope we got the arithmetic right) For example: project1has a website = 1 star publishes proactive information = 2 stars each resources has a unique URL = 3 stars The project rank according to the star system is 6 EXCEPTIONS: IF however a project does not fall into any of the categories above, for example, a project has no webpage, but one paper is accessible/findable with a unique URI, the auditor can assign an 'arbitrary' number of stars, for example one star, if only one paper is found (but no website, nor project page, nor other resources) the auditor can assign one or more star (up to three or four stars, but not cumulative) However, the auditor should make a note in the 'comment' slot that this project was awarded x number of stars arbitrarily based on one or two resources retrieved, and not based on the standard criteria for assigning stars as per the schema above |