Assessment of Self-Archiving in Institutional Repositories: Depositorship and Full-Text Availability
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Please do not remove this page Assessment of Self-Archiving in Institutional Repositories: Depositorship and Full-Text Availability Xia, Jingfeng; Sun, Li https://scholarship.libraries.rutgers.edu/discovery/delivery/01RUT_INST:ResearchRepository/12643387970004646?l#13643537480004646 Xia, & Sun, L. (2007). Assessment of Self-Archiving in Institutional Repositories: Depositorship and Full-Text Availability. In Serials Review (Vol. 33, Issue 1, pp. 14–21). Rutgers University. https://doi.org/10.7282/T3NC5ZJF This work is protected by copyright. You are free to use this resource, with proper attribution, for research and educational purposes. Other uses, such as reproduction or publication, may require the permission of the copyright holder. Downloaded On 2022/06/24 01:02:30 -0400
Published in Serials Review, 2007, 33(1): 14-21.
Assessment of Self-Archiving in Institutional Repositories:
Depositorship and Full-Text Availability
Jingfeng Xia and Li Sun
Abstract: This research evaluates the success of open access self-archiving in several well-
known institutional repositories. Two assessment factors have been applied to examine the
current practice of self-archiving: depositorship and the availability of full text. This research
discovers that the rate of author self-archiving is low and that the majority of documents have
been deposited by a librarian or administrative staff. Similarly, the rate of full-text availability
is relatively low, except for Australian repositories. By identifying different practices of self-
archiving, repository managers can create new strategies for the operation of their repositories
and the development of archiving policies.
Introduction
Self-archiving is ―a broad term often applied to the electronic posting, without publisher
mediation, of author supplied research.‖1 The process ―involves a simple web interface where
the depositor copy/pastes in the ‗metadata‘ (date, author-name, title, journal-name, etc.) and
then attaches the full-text document.‖2 The definition of ―self‖ has been vague in current
discussions. While some definitions include non-authors as contributors,3 most others refer to
authors only.4 In this article ―self‖ is used in its stricter definition to denote authors
themselves depositing their research results.
Much has been written about the importance of self-archiving for the development of
institutional repositories (IRs); however, less has been explored for assessing the achievement
of self-archiving, at least quantitative explorations beyond individual repositories.5,6 The lack
of such assessment is primarily due to the short history of IRs, most of which are less than
five years old and still in their experimental stages. Self-archiving has been viewed as a
revolutionary practice for accumulating content for digital repositories and never doubted in
its applicability to IRs.
Assessment is a necessary way of providing data for realigning the practice of self-archiving
in the operation of IRs, thereby re-negotiating the infrastructure of repositories. An
appropriate evaluation of the progress of a digital repository within the institution can
demonstrate usage, justify investment, and support the case for further development.7 Beyond
an institution, a repository evaluation can identify community trends and support regional,
national, and international collaborations.
Self-archiving was born with subject-based repositories (SRs) in the early 1990s. In the past
fifteen years, self-archiving has proven to be the fundamental concept of collecting content
documents. Authors themselves deposited their research outcome in the forms of pre-prints
(before peer-review, e.g., arXiv) and post-prints (after peer-review, e.g., PubMed Central) into
1SRs.8 This concept was inherited by IRs from their first presence less than ten years ago,
assuming that the success of self-archiving in SRs would guarantee the same success in IRs.
More than a decade later, IRs have proliferated around the world, and this growth makes
possible the assessment of self-archiving in institutional repositories.
This research attempts to perform a quantitative analysis on self-archiving. It examines the
depositorship of content documents in some selected IRs, aiming to identify patterns of author
archiving vs. non-author archiving. Such identification will draw a better picture of self-
archiving practices and help understand the real situation of IR management. This research
also checks the availability of full text in these IRs because researchers are more interested in
reading full text than citations only.9 The rate of full-text availability in an IR‘s content is a
great indicator of the success of the IR. We hope these measures will help repository
managers develop new strategies to promote the participation of faculty in the innovation of
scholarly communication.
Challenges in Self-Archiving
Institutional repositories have experienced a tremendous development. Within a short period
of time, according to Tompson et al., the number of functional IRs has reached more than
250.10 Another survey found 305 IRs in twelve countries by June 2005, not including the
United States, which was one of the top performers in advancing IRs.11 The Register of Open
Access Repositories recorded 637 IRs in March 2006.12 In addition, many other institutions
are planning to build their repositories,13 thereby making the total number of IRs potentially
bigger.
With the proliferation of IRs, some articles talking about individual IRs also included the
examination of self-archiving practice in the repositories as part of their research.14 Many
assessments focused on the achievements and challenges of open access self-archiving. Most
investigations concentrated on identifying the attitudes of authors toward carrying out self-
archiving. Such examinations, however, usually appeared to be brief and unsystematic.
One of the early assessment projects was supported by the Joint Information Systems
Committee (JISC) in the U.K., resulting in two reports on self-archiving.15 In particular, the
second report is an author study that released statistics on issues pertaining to self-archiving in
selected IRs. It described an investigation of 1,296 respondents about authors‘ self-archiving
behavior and outcomes. As a cross-disciplinary and cross-country study, this report revealed
some important discoveries.
In Australia, Arthur Sale analyzed the content of IRs of seven universities.16 By comparing
their content size, he attempted to figure out if a policy that required faculty to deposit their
research output into an IR could result in higher archiving rates. Of these universities, the
Queensland University of Technology (QUT) set a formal requirement for authors to make
contributions to its repository. Sale also focused his research on the patterns of self-archiving.
He selected three IRs that adopted a mandatory policy in Australia and the U.K. and examined
the time lag of articles from their publication in journals to the acquisition in the repositories.
He found that the institutionalization of a mandatory policy would have a remarkable impact
on the speed of article deposition by authors.17
2Similar assessment projects are currently being undertaken in the United States. For example,
the MIRACLE (Making Institutional Repositories in A Collaborative Learning Environment),
sponsored by the IMLS (Institute of Museum and Library Services), was launched to
investigate the development of institutional repositories. Its purpose is to discover elements
for the success of institutional repositories and effective ways of contributing to and accessing
repositories. The outcomes of the project are expected to include ―case studies that illustrate
key elements contributing to their success; specification of variables that influence success
factors; evaluation of institutional repositories based on user studies; instruments and
protocols for re-use by other investigators and repository staff.‖18 These assessments found
that self-archiving has faced challenges in the daily practice of IRs.
One of the challenges comes from scholars‘ attitudes toward and behaviors in performing
self-archiving.19 The other challenge is the actual recruitment of IR content documents.20
Scholars, however, have not been as enthusiastic about self-archiving their research results
into repositories as expected originally.21 This apathy was initially considered to be the result
of unawareness of the existence of an IR to faculty scholars. Researchers and IR managers
adopted a variety of strategies to promote repositories, which included personalizing the
interface of a repository for each individual depositor,22 simplifying depositing procedures,23
incorporating existing Web materials into the content of an IR,24 and the like. However,
researchers soon realized that faculty did not have time or inclination to self-archive their
work, even though they knew the existence of an IR. The fact that self-archiving an article
requires only several minutes was not enough to convince them to contribute.25
One assumption is that scholars did not generally recognize the benefits of repositories to
their scholarly work. Usability studies emerged to analyze the impact of IR materials to the
research community.26 Interoperable repository statistics were released to measure the usage
of all types of documents within selected repositories and call the attention of scholars to the
value of repositories.27 Yet, it has become clear that even though scholars were supportive of
the repository revolution and agreed to give their materials to an IR, they would rather give
the IR managers permission to ―do the work on their behalf, but could not commit to doing
the work themselves.‖28
With regard to the increase of content size, IR managers have observed a noticeable change
over time. During the first months/years of the establishment of many IRs, documents were
accumulated rapidly through self-archiving, thereby bringing much optimism to IR advocates
and managers. Then, the recruitment of IR content began slowing down. It became a universal
phenomenon that ―the rate of deposit of new records typically falls off sharply after the initial
burst.‖29
Content size is one of the most important factors for assessing the achievement of self-
archiving.30 Very few IR managers are satisfied with the content of their IRs. In fact, most
managers are concerned with their recruiting rates and content capabilities.31 However, both
IR advocates and practitioners are equally optimistic about the future of self-archiving. Yet,
the practitioners who are aware of the difficulties in obtaining IR content through self-
archiving are also confident about the future. For them, the challenges to increase IR content
are only temporary and can be worked out by adopting feasible outreach plans.32 Many expect
3that a policy for mandating scholars to self-deposit their work into a repository can change the
current situation in IR content recruitment.33
In general, the literature on IR assessment has focused on personal interviews among faculty
members.34 Unquestionably, the attitudes and awareness of faculty scholars about repositories
have an impact on the practice of self-archiving. The attitudes and awareness, however, will
eventually have to be translated into the actual numbers of IR content. This translation, as
discussed above, is not an easy process. Also, insofar as the authors know, no study has
identified content documents self-deposited by authors and documents archived by other
people on behalf of the authors. This is key to the understanding of self-archiving
achievement regardless of what ―self-archiving‖ is defined. Without such assessment, we may
end up talking about something other than self-archiving.
Assessment Factors
In an article in the next issue of Serials Review, the authors discuss a set of factors useful for
assessing self-archiving in institutional repositories.35 The factors represent different
approaches in assessment from those in previous assessment projects. In prior studies,
authors‘ attitudes, implementation costs, and content usage were the main focuses.36 Factors
here concentrate on the evaluation of depositorship and full-text availability. These factors are
highlighted below.
Depositorship
Many repositories provide information about the depositor of an article, which may not be the
author of the article. A non-author deposition may signify different operational styles of an IR
and is a clear indicator of not-by-author self-archiving style. This display of depositor‘s name,
unfortunately, is not broadly available in all repositories. The EPrints application features the
name, although not all known EPrints repositories use the feature. Other software
applications, both open and commercial, such as DSpace, Fedora, Greenstone, and Symposia,
do not currently have a similar feature.
Depositorship is one of the cornerstones of self-archiving assessment. Although the definition
of self-archiving varies from scholar to scholar, it is always important to know the condition
of self-archiving in existing IRs. At least, ―self‖ is still one of the basic tenets of the IR
movement, with ―archiving, full text, open access, and interoperability‖ being the others.
Availability of Full Text
The value of open access repositories partly resides on the online availability of full-text
articles. Although metadata can provide important citation for research publications, it is full-
text documents that attract the attention of researchers. A great number of non-full-text
deposits in an IR will inevitably reduce the reliance of scholars on the IR in carrying out their
projects. The definition of self-archiving has underlined the importance of depositing both
metadata and the actual document into a digital repository.37 In practice, some IRs have
varying rates of metadata-only deposits. For such a deposit, many IRs provide a link to an
4external site where the corresponding full text is accommodated, thereby relying totally on
others for the availability of the full-text document.
Research Method
This research applied the two factors mentioned above to the measurement of self-archiving.
Nine repositories were selected from a list of known archives that run EPrints as their IR
software application.38 Compared to other IR software applications, EPrints was originally
designed to be and, as of this writing, is recognized as the Web-based tool that provides a
simple interface for end users to self-deposit materials and to retrieve content efficiently.
EPrints features a depositor field that requires input during article deposition and displays it
with other metadata information.
By October 2006, there were 213 archives running EPrints worldwide,39 including
repositories for institutions (mostly universities), subjects (disciplines or inter-disciplines),
functions (e.g., theses and dissertations), etc. Among them, only institutional repositories were
the focus of this research. Further, specialized academic institutions, such as an institute of
science or technology, were excluded in order to make comparisons across institutions, as
were repositories designed or operated by certain programs of an institution that would not
give a whole picture of self-archiving for multiple disciplines at the university level.
Another selection criterion was the content size of IRs that could range from several items to
thousands. We intentionally picked those that contained the most content documents on the
list. In general, the longer an IR has been running, the more content it accommodates, and,
therefore, the better reputation it has. The selected repositories have good reputations in the
development of IRs and in the research communities. Their content size has been large
enough to symbolize a success and allow an in-depth analysis, and their history has been long
enough to guarantee the evaluation of self-archiving. Multiple countries are represented
including Australia, Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (U.K.). Below is a list of the nine
IRs:
Australian National University (EPrints2 Archive),40 Australia
Lund University (LU: research),41 Sweden
Queensland University of Technology (ePrints Archive),42 Australia
University of Glasgow (ePrints Service),43 U.K.
University of Melbourne (ePrints Repository),44 Australia
University of Queensland (ePrint Archive),45 Australia
University of Southampton (ePrints Soton),46 U.K.
University of Strathclyde,47 U.K.
University of Trento (UNITH-ePrints),48 Italy
Most of the selected IRs have thousands of deposits. Due to time constraints, the authors only
sampled content instead of the entire IR population and accessed the content of each IR by
opening its ―Browse by Subject‖ and going into each subject. Documents in each subject were
covered for the assessment. If a subject contained fewer than twenty documents, each
document was manually checked. Its link to full text on a local server or to external source(s)
5was opened for further inspections. We recorded each deposit by checking its self-archiving
status and full-text availability. If a subject had more than twenty documents, we checked
every third document in the list until the number of checks reached twenty. The total number
of documents checked for each IR, except for Southampton and Lund because of their large
content size, was more than ten percent of the total content. The sample size for Southampton
and Lund was about 200 documents each.
The content documents typically include research articles, conference papers, book chapters,
reports, etc., published or unpublished. In some repositories, multimedia materials also exist.
In this research, theses and dissertations are not considered to be part of the content because
the authors wanted to check different rates of author vs. non-author archiving, and theses and
dissertations have obviously been the results of non-author archiving in most repositories. The
―advanced search‖ of EPrints provides a ―theses‖ option which can be unchecked to eliminate
both theses and dissertations. The accessing time to these repositories was early October
2006.
Findings and Discussion
Low Percentage of Author Self-Archiving
Among all EPrints repositories, the University of Southampton‘s Soton database has
absolutely the largest content. Its approximate 20,000 items are far more than any of its peer
repositories (Table 1). The success of the Soton database is primarily because Southampton is
the inventor of the EPrints application and the home of an enthusiastic self-archiving
advocate—Stevan Harnad. For many years, the university has made tremendous endeavors to
encourage self-archiving among its faculty.49
Table 1. Total content number by repository (source: http://www.eprints.orgsoftware/archives/ accessed
October 8, 2006)
Repository Country Deposits
Southampton University U.K. 20,621
Lund University Sweden 6241
Queensland University of Technology Australia 3777
University of Queensland Australia 3451
Australian National University Australia 2776
Glasgow University U.K. 2765
University of Strathclyde U.K. 1420
University of Melbourne Australia 1331
University of Trento Italy 685
6It is worth noting that author self-archiving is not the major way of contribution to the
accumulation of the content in Southampton‘s Soton repository. The findings reveal that the
majority of existing documents are not deposited by authors. In other words, for most
documents, the name appeared in the ―Deposited By‖ field of a document is not found in the
authors of the document.
Southampton is by no means an isolated case. As a matter of fact, all IRs in our list, except for
Lund and Glasgow that do not provide a depositor data, have a low percentage of author self-
archiving (Table 2). For most documents in these IRs, the ―Deposited By‖ field has one of the
following: (1) a name that is not the author of this document, (2) an abbreviation for a
department or school, and (3) something that may indicate this document as imported by an
automated program. The third one is relatively rare. The ―Deposited By‖ field has a link to
another page where information about this depositor is provided, which in most cases includes
the total number of documents deposited by the depositor on the server. Usually, a non-author
depositor has many deposits, few of which, if any, are his/her own writings. The information
may also indicate that the depositor is a librarian or administrative staff who is assigned as a
liaison to the repository with the duty of depositing digital materials on behalf of faculty
members or of an academic unit.
Table 2. Rate of author self-archiving by repository
Repository Country Non-author Author
Lund University Sweden N/A N/A
Glasgow University U.K. N/A N/A
University of Strathclyde U.K. 0.99 0.01
University of Trento Italy 0.98 0.02
Australian National University Australia 0.94 0.06
University of Southampton U.K. 0.77 0.23
University of Melbourne Australia 0.68 0.32
Queensland University of Technology Australia 0.64 0.36
University of Queensland Australia 0.61 0.39
Queensland University of Technology (QUT) has implicitly claimed that administrative staff
in individual academic units are encouraged to deposit papers on behalf of authors from their
unit.50 The QUT EPrints shows that a librarian at the university library has deposited 445
documents, of which only five articles are written by her. At the University of Queensland
(UQ), a librarian has as many as 1,029 deposits, consisting of about one third of the total
content in this IR. Among all her deposits, only seventeen articles were authored or co-
7authored by this librarian. Similar practices can be easily detected from the IRs of Australian
National University (ANU), Melbourne, Strathclyde, and Trento.
The IRs of ANU, Strathclyde, and Trento have adopted an almost exclusively non-author
depositing practice (see Table 2). A great percentage of their materials are deposited by
others. Although other Australian IRs have a relatively lower rate of non-author depositing,
the rate can also be as high as 70 percent.
Among author self-archived documents, only a few authors appear to be active depositors.
Taking UQ as an example, an author (Hubert Chanson) deposited a total of 283 documents,
and another author (Jerome K. Vanclay) deposited 147 documents, while the total content
number was 3,451 by early October 2006. This situation seems to be common in other IRs as
well. Due to the relatively small number of content in most IRs, many scholars in these
institutions may not have participated in self-archiving, although a few others appear to be
enthusiastic.
This finding is reflected in current practices of self-archiving in some IRs. After several years
of practice in the operation of IRs in different parts of the world, many strategies have been
developed to promote the recruitment of content material. Depositing papers for others is one
of the strategies. In addition to the IRs examined here, many other repositories have also
worked toward this strategy. For example, a recent article cited the involvement of assistants
in depositing papers for the T-Space repository at the University of Toronto.51 The senior
author was once an assistant depositing articles for scholars who gave rights to the DLIST
repository at the University of Arizona.
A liaison system is an effective way of collaboration between a library and academic units
served by the library in higher educational institutions.52 In traditional library service, a
librarian is usually assigned to work with particular department(s). ―(T)hose where library
service appeared to be most valued by the faculty were those for which librarians reported the
most frequent interaction with faculty members.‖53 The self-archiving process could still be
assigned to a librarian to deposit documents for faculty in given department(s), or be assigned
to someone specifically working on contributing research work of the faculty members in the
department. The latter might be a particularly practical model because the department liaison
is more aware of any updates in the research of faculty of his/her unit than a librarian is.
Utilizing departmental staff will be more common when a mandate policy for self-archiving is
introduced in the operation of an IR.54 Given the changed practices, we may need to
reconsider the definition of self-archiving and add non-author deposition into its concept.
Unavailability of Full Text
The process of self-archiving an article includes the deposition of metadata, as well as full-
text documents. In the IRs examined, full-text documents are not always available. Lack of
availability may vary from IR to IR or from subject to subject inside an IR, but it merits
analysis.
Table 3 shows that lack of full text is obvious in IRs in the European institutions except for
the University of Trento, based in Italy. The Strathclyde EPrints has the highest rate of non-
8full-text content, which is as high as about 91 percent. The rates of non-full-text documents
for other European IRs, namely, Lund, Glasgow, and Southampton, are 84 percent, 73
percent, and 67 percent respectively.
Table 3. Rate of full-text availability by repository
Repository Country Full-text Abstract
University of Strathclyde U.K. 0.09 0.91
Lund University Sweden 0.16 0.84
Glasgow University U.K. 0.27 0.73
University of Southampton U.K. 0.33 0.67
University of Trento Italy 0.89 0.11
University of Queensland Australia 0.96 0.04
Queensland University of Technology Australia 0.96 0.04
University of Melbourne Australia 0.99 0.01
Australian National University Australia 0.99 0.01
All four Australian IRs, on the other hand, show a low rate of non-full-text documents, with a
percentage as low as less or less than 5 percent. This may be related to the existence of a
mandate policy by Australian institutions or merely demonstrate different operational styles of
these IRs. According to Arthur Sale, QUT is the only university in Australia that requires its
faculty to self-archive digital documents in its IR.55 Other Australian universities have not
adopted a similar policy as of this writing.
Current data are not sufficient enough to suggest a geographic influence in the operation of
IRs. Theoretically, the policies and practices of an IR are regulated and applied at the
institutional level. Similarities of IRs across institutions may be the result of regional or
national collaborations, such as a consortium or a higher-level project/organization that
sponsors a group of IRs and shares ideas among them. Further investigations are necessary for
a better understanding of IR similarities and differences with regard to self-archiving styles.
It is uncertain if some non-full-text deposits are the result of metadata harvesting from
external data providers, or if they are added to an IR merely for the purpose of making the IR
content look larger. Current information indicates that for Southampton, ―the repository entry
is sometimes just a metadata stub and the full-text has not been uploaded to the repository…
In the case of the Australian repositories, metadata-only entries are held in separate reporting
databases (WARP in Tasmania, Research Master in QUT) and the open access repositories
hold 100 percent full text items.‖56
The non-full-text deposits can be divided into two categories: metadata with an abstract and
metadata without an abstract. Some provide an external link to the journal‘s Web site on
9which an article is published or to another Web page where the full text is available. Links
depend on the status of the external source for online accessibility. As a result, many links
direct the user to a login-required Web page for full text; some links are broken links where
the original URL has been changed or closed; and, some links, though returning full text not
featured by the local server, may potentially become dead links. Therefore, the difference
between the availability of full text and the presence of metadata is ―only a few clicks.‖57
While the usability of an IR relies on its content size, the value of the content is largely
determined by the availability of full-text documents.58 Researchers are more interested in
reading a full article than an abstract.59 Or, ―a combination between abstract and full text
documentation would represent a reasonable compromise between user acceptance.‖60 The
value of an IR and thus self-archiving will be lowered if the majority of its content are
metadata with abstract only, or even worse, metadata without an abstract, and if an external
link to the full text version becomes unavailable.
Conclusion
Self-archiving as a revolutionary way of publishing has been a myth for a long time.
Advocates have emphasized its advantages and significance in scholarly communication.
Although having already found self-archiving difficult to promote and manage, practitioners
tend to pinpoint its potentials and take an optimistic view. In most discussions, self-archiving
has been considered to be an integrated part of the development and practice of digital
repositories, both IRs and SRs.
A closer look at individual deposits, however, divulges a slow, if not negative, performance of
self-archiving in the making of IR content documents. Not only are the majority of current IR
deposits contributed by non-authors, but many IR deposits are also presented in a non-full-
text mode. IR managers have invested tremendous time, money, and energy to campaign for
self-archiving by bringing the attention of scholars in their institutions. Their harvests,
however, are not at all what they should have deserved proportionally.
The understanding of the practice of self-archiving will help re-orient the operation of IRs and
make them healthy. Repository as a digital platform of scholarly communication still has its
value, although criticism exists.61 The assessment of input activity is key in determining the
use of information systems, thereby adding values to digital repositories.62
This very preliminary assessment examined two factors on the status of self-archiving. Only
IRs using EPrints and having the largest content size were selected. Also, the assessment
relied solely on publicly accessible data. Future analysis can extend to a complete set of
assessment factors and include other types of IRs, either EPrints or DSpace and Fedora. Both
comparative studies across IRs and in-depth evaluations on individual IRs are necessary.
Thorough evaluations on the most successful IRs will produce valuable information in
understanding the importance of self-archiving. Further assessments can be carried out by
combining quantitative evaluations on IR deposits with qualitative interviews among scholars
and IR professionals.
References
101. Raym Crown, ―The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper,‖ ARL
Bimonthly Report 223 (August 2002), http://www.arl.org/sparc/IR/ir.html (accessed October
4, 2006).
2. Self-Archiving FAQ, http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/ (accessed October 4,
2006).
3. Stevan Harnad, ―The Self-archiving Initiative‖, Nature 410 (2001), pp. 1024–1025
http://www.nature.com.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/nature/debates/e-
access/Articles/harnad.html (accessed October 4, 2006).
4. Suzie Allard, Thura R. Mack, and Melanie Feltner-Reichert, ―The Librarian‘s Role in
Institutional Repositories: A Content Analysis of the Literature,‖ Reference Services Review
33, no. 3 (2005): 327; Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown, Open Access Self-archiving: An
Author Report (Cornwall, UK, May 2005), http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999 (accessed
August 17, 2006); Stephen Pinfield, ―Self-archiving Publications,‖ in International Yearbook
of Library and Information Management 2004–2005: Scholarly Publishing in an Electronic
Era, eds. G.E. Gorman and Fytton Rowland (London: Facet Publishing, 2004), 118–145.
5. Allard, Mack, and Feltner-Reichert, ―The Librarian‘s Role in Institutional Repositories;‖
Stephen Pinfield, ―Self-archiving Publications;‖ Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown, Open
Access Self-archiving: An Author Report; Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown, ―Authors and
Open Access Publishing,‖ Learned Publishing 17, no. 3 (July 2004): 219–224.
6. Allard, Mack, and Feltner-Reichert, ―Repositories,‖ 331.
7. Peter Morgan and Julie Walker, The DSpace Impact Factor: Measuring Progress in
Developing a Digital Institutional Repository, Presented at DSpace User Group, March 10,
2004, http://www.dspace.org/conference/presentations/cambridge-mit.ppt (accessed October
4, 2006).
8. arXiv. http://arxiv.org/ (accessed October 4, 2006); PubMed Central,
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ (accessed October 4, 2006).
9. Carol Tenopir, ―Designing Systems for All of Us‖, Library Journal 128 (May 2003) (8), p.
32.
10. Sara R. Tompson, Deborah A. Holmes-Wong and Janis F. Brown, ―Institutional
Repositories: Beware the ‗Field of Dreams‘ Fallacy!‖ Paper presented at the Special Libraries
Association Annual Conference, Baltimore, MD (2006, June 12)
http://units.sla.org/division/dst/Annual%2520Conference%2520Contributed%2520Papers/200
6papers/Sara%2520Tompson%2520IR%2520paper.pdf (accessed October 4, 2006).
11. Gerard van Westrienen and Clifford A. Lynch, ―Academic Institutional Repositories:
Deployment Status in 13 Nations as of Mid 2005‖, D-Lib Magazine 11 (2005, September) (9)
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/westrienen/09westrienen.html (accessed October 4,
2006).
1112. Pauline Simpson and Jessie Hey, ―Repositories for Research: Southampton‘s Evolving
Role in the Knowledge Cycle‖, Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems 40
(2006, July) (3), p. 225.
13. Clifford A. Lynch and Joan K. Lippincott, ―Institutional Repository Deployment in the
United States as of early 2005‖, D-Lib Magazine 11 (2005, September) (9)
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/lynch/09lynch.html (accessed October 4, 2006).
14. Nancy Fried Foster and Susan Gibbons, ―Understanding Faculty to Improve Content
Recruitment for Institutional Repositories,‖ D-Lib Magazine 11, no. 1 (January 2005),
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html (accessed October 4, 2006); Morag
Mackie, ―Filling Institutional Repositories: Practical Strategies from the DAEDALUS
Project,‖ Ariadne 39 (April 2004), http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue39/mackie/ (access October
4, 2006).
15. Swan and Brown, Open Access Self-archiving: An Author Report; Swan and Brown,
―Authors and Open Access Publishing.‖.
16. Arthur Sale, ―Comparison of Content Policies for Institutional Repositories in Australia,‖
First Monday 11 (April 2006), http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_4/sale/index.html
(accessed October 4, 2006); Arthur Sale, ―Researchers and Institutional Repositories,‖ in
Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects, ed. Neil Jacobs (Oxford:
Chandos Publishing Limited, 2006), 87–100.
17. Arthur Sale, ―The Acquisition of Open Access Research Articles,‖ (August 2006),
http://eprints.comp.utas.edu.au%3A81/archive/00000375/01/Acquisition.pdf (accessed
October 8, 2006).
18. The MIRACLE (Making Institutional Repositories in A Collaborative Learning
Environment) Project, http://miracle.si.umich.edu/bibliography.html (accessed October 4,
2006).
19. Foster and Gibbons, ―Recruitment;‖ Mackie, ―Filling Institutional Repositories.‖.
20. Swan and Brown, Open Access Self-archiving: An Author Report; Swan and Brown,
―Authors and Open Access Publishing.‖.
21. Ibid.
22. Foster and Gibbons, ―Recruitment.‖.
23. Leslie Carr and Stevan Harnad, ―Keystroke Economy: A Study of the Time and Effort
Involved in Self-archiving,‖ (March 2005), http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688 (accessed
October 4, 2006); Yvonne H. Ozek, ―Lund Virtual Medical Journal Makes Self-archiving
Attractive and Easy for Authors,‖ D-Lib Magazine 11, no. 10 (October 2005),
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october05/ozek/10ozek.html (accessed October 4, 2006).
1224. Jessica Hey, ―Targeting Academic Research with Southampton‘s Institutional
Repository‖, Ariadne 40 (July, 2004) http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue40/hey/ (accessed
October 4, 2006).
25. Carr and Harnad, ―Keystroke Economy.‖.
26. Christine Quiron, Documents Services Annual Report, 2004–2005 (2005):
http://macfadden.mit.edu/deptannual/pdf/DOCSERV.annualreport.05.pdf (accessed October
4, 2006); Lena V. Silva, Alberto H.F. Laender, and Marcos A. Goncalves, ―A Usability
Evaluation Study of a Digital Library Self-archiving Service,‖ JCDL, June 7–11, 2005,
Denver, Co.
27. Interoperable Repository Statistics, http://irs.eprints.org/about.html (accessed October 4,
2006).
28. Mackie, ―Filling Institutional Repositories.‖
29. Mark Ware, Pathfinder Research on Web-based Repositories–Final Report (Bristol, UK:
Publisher and Library Learning Solutions, 2004); Mark Ware, ―Institutional Repositories and
Scholarly Publishing,‖ Learned Publishing 17, no. 2 (April 2004): 115–124.
30. Steve Probets and Celia Jenkins, ―Documentation for Institutional Repositories‖, Learned
Publishing 19 (January, 2006) (1), p. 58.
31. Allard, Mack, and Feltner-Reichert, ―The Librarian‘s Role in Institutional Repositories,‖
331.
32. Foster and Gibbons, ―Understanding Faculty to Improve Content Recruitment.‖.
33. Sale, ―Comparison of Content Policies for Institutional Repositories in Australia;‖ Sale,
―Researchers and Institutional Repositories.‖.
34. Swan and Brown, Open Access Self-archiving.
35. Jingfeng Xia and Li Sun, ―Factors to Assess Self-Archiving in Institutional Repositories‖,
Serials Review 33 (2007) (2) (forthcoming), doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2006.09.002.
36. Swan and Brown, Open Access Self-archiving; Swan and Brown, ―Authors and Open
Access Publishing;‖ Silva, Laender, and Goncalves, ―A Usability Evaluation Study.‖.
37. Self-Archiving FAQ, http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/ (accessed October 4,
2006).
38. EPrints, http://www.eprints.org/software/archives/ (accessed October 4, 2006).
39. Ibid.
1340. Australian National University, http://eprints.anu.edu.au/ (accessed October 4, 2006).
41. Lund University, http://ask.lub.lu.se/ (accessed October 4, 2006).
42. Queensland University of Technology, http://eprints.qut.edu.au/ (accessed October 4,
2006).
43. University of Glasgow, http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/ (accessed October 4, 2006).
44. University of Melbourne, http://eprints.unimelb.edu.au/ (accessed October 4, 2006).
45. University of Queensland, http://eprint.uq.edu.au/ (accessed October 4, 2006).
46. University of Southampton, http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/ (accessed October 4, 2006).
47. University of Strathclyde, http://strathprints.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/ (accessed October 4, 2006).
48. University of Trento, http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/ (accessed October 4, 2006).
49. Hey, ―Targeting Academic Research with Southampton‘s Institutional Repository:‖
Simpson and Hey, ―Repositories for Research.‖.
50. Paula Callan, ―The Development and Implementation of a University-wide Self-archiving
Policy at Queensland University of Technology (QUT): Insights from the Frontline,‖ in
Proceedings Institutional Repositories: The Next Stage, Workshop presented by SPARC and
SPARC Europe, November 18–19, 2004, Washington, DC,
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00000573/ (accessed October 4, 2006); Paula Callan and C.
Cleary, ―Digital Repositories at Queensland University of Technology,‖ in Managing
Information in the Digital Age: ATN Libraries Respond to the Challenge, ed. Ann Hutharaite,
University of South Australia Library for Librarians of the Australian Technology Network
(Adelaide, 2005), 1–13, http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00000516/ (accessed October 4,
2006).
51. Rea Devakos, ―Towards User Responsive Institutional Repositories: A Case Study‖,
Library Hi Tech 24 (2006) (2), pp. 173–182.
52. Donald H. Dilmore, ―Librarian/Faculty Interaction at Nine England Colleges‖, College
and Research Libraries 57 (1996, May), pp. 274–284.
Deborah Jakubs, ―Staffing for Collection Development in the Electronic Environment:
Toward a New Definition of Roles and Responsibilities‖, Journal of Library Administration
28 (1999) (4), pp. 71–83.
53. Dilmore, ―Librarian/Faculty Interaction,‖ 282–83.
54. Arthur Sale, ―The Impact of Mandatory Policies on ETD Acquisition‖, D-Lib Magazine
12 (2006, April) (4) http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april06/sale/04sale.html. (accessed October 8,
2006).
1455. Sale, ―Comparison of Content Policies for Institutional Repositories in Australia;‖ Sale,
―Researchers and Institutional Repositories.‖.
56. Arthur Sale, ―The Acquisition of Open Access Research Articles,‖ (August 2006),
http://eprints.utas.edu.au/388/01/FirstMondayOct06.pdf (accessed December 13, 2006).
57. Ibid.
58. Derek Whitehead, ―Repositories: What is the Target? An Arrow Perspective‖, New
Review of Information Networking 11 (May, 2005) (1), p. 124.
59. Michael Organ, ―Download Statistics—What Do They Tell Us? The Example of Research
Online, the Open Access Institutional Repository at the University of Wollongong, Australia‖,
D-Lib Magazine 12 (November, 2006) (11)
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/organ/11organ.html (accessed November 17, 2006).
60. J.W. Goebel, ―Towards Abstracts or Full Text Documentation in Legal Information
Systems‖, Nachrichten fur Dokumentation 36 (April, 1985) (2), p. 77.
61. Tompson, Holmes-Wong, and Brown, ―Institutional Repositories: Beware the ‗Field of
Dreams‘ Fallacy!‖
62. M. Kathleen Shearer, ―Institutional Repositories: Towards the Identification of Critical
Success Factors‖, Canadian Journal of Information and Library Sciences 27 (September,
2002/2003) (3), pp. 89–108.
15You can also read
