Filling the repository

From Harvard Open Access Project
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • This section could be a subsection within Implementing a policy. But because it's large and still growing, we're making it a section to itself.
  • This section covers incentives for authors to deposit their work themselves, as well as other methods, human and machine, for getting their work into the repository.
  • For now, this section is organized alphabetically by method, and alphabetically by author within each method.

Advocacy and education

  • Example. Brown, Josh, Kathy Sadler, and Martin Moyle. 2010. Influencing the deposit of electronic theses in UK HE: Report on a sector-wide survey into thesis deposit and open access. University College London.
    • This JISC-funded study, led by the University College London, explores policies on, practices surrounding, and "barriers to the electronic deposit of e-theses" in the United Kingdom. Several of the identified concerns could be alleviated with education, and while there are limited examples of these being legitimate issues, the following concerns were reported: "the risks associated with third party copyright infringement in electronic theses (89 HEIs)...plagiarism (76 HEIs)...inclusion of sensitive data within theses (75 HEIs); and that open e-thesis deposit might hinder an author's future publication prospects (72 HEIs)."
  • Example. COAR. 2012. Researcher advocacy. Preliminary report – Sustainable best practices for populating repositories, COAR.
    • The Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) has released a preliminary report on their efforts "to collect and disseminate sustainable, replicable best practices related to populating repositories." Included in these initial results are the advocacy efforts undertaken by the Digital Repository Federation (DRF) in Japan, including building relationships, "always [being] visible," and creating a tailored message (find the full report here); and the Universität Konstanz, which relies heavily on building personal connections to both recruit content and develop allegiances (find more information here).
  • Example. EIFL. 2012. EIFL open access advocacy grants deliver big results. EIFL-OA.
    • This work reports on the fruits of EIFL's grant awardees' efforts to improve "awareness-raising and advocacy activities" locally, the result of which was that "1700 national policy makers, research administrators, researchers, students, journal editors and publishers, and librarians attended workshops or other outreach events; educational materials in seven languages have been developed, including six short videos; 30 new OA repositories were set up and there was an increase in research output deposited in existing OA repositories; and three Universities launched new OA publishing initiatives." Four case studies are presented at the close of the work, which explore the advocacy efforts of the University of Zimbabwe, Kamuzu College of Nursing, the University of Latvia, and the University of Khartoum.
  • Example. Evans, Jill. 2011. University of Exeter Advocacy Plan available. RePosit: Positing a new kind of repository deposit, JISC.
    • Evans provides the detailed advocacy plan for all of the constituents that the University of Exeter hopes to reach to encourage use of RePosit. Methods are tailored to each audience, and she notes that social media will be used "as much as possible" because it is quick, easy, and has a wide reach.
  • Example. Gramstadt, Marie-Therese. 2011. Two new toolkits to ‘Kultivate’ artistic research deposit. JISC Repositories Support Project.
    • Funded by JISC, the Kultivate project works "to increase the rate of arts research deposit." As such, it has developed a toolkit to support repository managers and staff in the development of an advocacy plan to encourage deposit of visual arts researchers.
  • Example. Gray, Keith, and Helen Cooper. 2010. CLoK - Central Lancashire Online Knowledge - UCLan Institutional Repository. JISC Final Report.
    • Gray and Cooper report on the steps taken to ensure a successful launch of the University of Central Lancashire's institutional repository. Central to the launch was the partnership that was established with the research community at the outset to not only gather content for the repository, but "[embed] the Repository within the University strategic goals and operational workflows at a high level to ensure its sustainability through ongoing population by research, teaching and learning and other project output". The outreach for this partnership started early in the process and included continual representation of and engagement with the research community.
  • Example. Harjuniemi, Marja-Leena, and Sinikka Lehto. 2012. Open access survey: The results. Survey of academic attitudes towards open access and institutional repositories. Jyväskylä University Library.
    • A library survey conducted at University of Jyväskylä revealed that while "Open Access is received very positively among the researchers...OA thinking is not, however, reflected as strongly in researchers’ own publishing activity." The participating faculty had several common misconceptions about the deposit process, permissions, and the repository's function, in general. Armed with this understanding of their faculty's concerns, the library aims to clarify the deposit process and the role of researchers therein.
  • Example. Hubbard, Bill. 2010. PEER Baseline – why don’t authors deposit? Research Communications.
    • Bill Hubbard from the Centre for Research Communications, University of Nottingham discusses author concerns about depositing their work in institutional repositories. Foremost is that peer-reviewed work is listed alongside grey literature, but there are also concerns about "infringing copyright and infringing embargo periods;...the paper not having been 'properly edited by the publisher'; not knowing of a suitable repository; a concern about plagiarism or unknown reuse; then not knowing how to deposit material in a repository and not knowing what a repository was." In response, Hubbard notes that education and "continued, repetitive, hard slog advocacy of the basics" will ease these concerns.
  • Example. Kim, Jihyun. 2010. Faculty self-archiving: Motivations and barriers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(9): 1909–1922. [Note: This is a toll access article, requiring subscription.]
    • Kim surveyed and interviewed 684 faculty members from 17 Carnegie institutions that use DSpace for their institutional repository, and found seven factors to be "significantly related" to deposit behavior: "copyright concerns, additional time and effort, and age...academic reward, altruism, self-archiving culture, and technical skills." Of these factors, several may be addressed with education. Kim concluded that training on and assistance with the deposit process can "encourage faculty who are less adept at computers to participate."
  • Example. Koelen, M. Th., Rosemary M. Shafack, and Harry Ngum. 2009. Think big start small: Institutional repositories: Policies, strategies, technological options, standards and best practices. The case of the University of Bue. In First International Conference on African Digital Libraries and Archives (ICADLA-1): July 1-3, 2009, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
    • Cameroon's University of Buea serves as a case study for implementing an institutional repository in this conference work. Koelen et al. define the challenges facing libraries and note the benefits that are offered by IRs before discussing the hurdles that the University of Buea's library experienced while establishing their own repository, as well as their workarounds. Central to gathering content from the faculty was a "start small...to ensure functionality and effectiveness" plan: the IR was first populated with "postgraduate theses." Currently advocacy efforts are underway to ensure the larger university community supports deposits to the IR.
  • Example. Kounoudes, Alexia, and Marios Zervas. 2011. Best practices and policies in institutional repositories development: The Ktisis case. In 3rd International Conference on Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries: May 24-27, 2011, Athens, Greece.
    • Kounoudes and Zervas discuss general practices for establishing IRs, and then explore the evolution of the Cyprus University of Technology's Ktisis. Following the initial implementation of the repository, the library staff focused its promotion. Included in their efforts was the "develop[ment of] information services...using help pages, user guides, flyers, etc." to address copyright concerns of researchers and help them "understand the benefits that the institutional repository can offer."
  • Example. Kristick, Laurel. 2009. Using journal citation reports and SHERPA RoMEO to facilitate conversations on institutional repositories. Oregon State University Library.
    • Kristick writes of a study at Oregon State University that involved surveying Thomson Reuters' Journal Citation Reports and SHERPA RoMEO to determine whether "core journals in a discipline...allow[ed] pre- or post-print archiving in their copyright transfer agreements." With this list, library staff approached faculty with "scholarly communication issues such as author’s rights and open access" as a means of opening the discussion to encourage deposit to the institutional repository.
  • Example. Miller, Jonathan. 2010. Creating change in scholarly communication. The Director's Blog.
    • Jonathan Miller of Rollins College got faculty involved with periodical reviews when canceling titles as a practical means of opening discussion on campus about scholarly communication; OA journals and repositories were then introduced as an alternative. Miller tailored his talking points toward different constituents; for example, "the provost was interested in institutional reputation, the Dean of Faculty by the idea of a stable repository of faculty publications, IT and the librarians in a hosted solution...which did not involve much staff time and expertise [and]...the faculty...in more visibility for their own research and a policy that was flexible." He also partnered with "faculty champions" to work on creating support for an OA policy.
  • Example. Nowicki, Stacy. 2008. Best practices and policy in institutional repository development: Kalamazoo College’s experience. In NITLE Conference "Scholarly Collaboration and Small Colleges in the Digital Age": January 11, 2008, Pomona College, Claremont, CA.
    • In a presentation that shares the "questions to answer" surrounding "workflow patterns, guidelines for selecting appropriate materials, [and] ideas for publicizing the project" that drove Kalamazoo College's institutional repository development, several slides are dedicated to the "people to involve" in IR projects. Nowicki indicates that these populations - library and IT staff, deans, faculty, and administrative assistants - require outreach for success, including fostering "a sense of community ownership" and "buy in."
  • Example. Palmer, Carole L., Lauren C. Teffeau, and Mark P. Newman. 2008. Strategies for institutional repository development: A case study of three evolving initiatives. Library Trends, 57(2): 142-167.
    • Palmer et al. offer a case study of three libraries and their approaches to filling their institutional repositories with content. While used to varying degrees, all three institutions employed advocacy for the institutional repository to acquire content, from faculty outreach with library liaisons to instructional presentations and branding and marketing of the repository.
  • Example. Pontika, Nancy. 2012. Some thoughts on institutional repositories. Repositories Support Project blog.
    • Following a presentation at the University of Lincoln, Pontika offers her "thoughts concerning institutional repositories, their management and value." In her discussion, Pontika advises that gaining the support of the institution's "research office," because they are "the people who should urge the researchers to deposit their manuscripts to their institutional repositories," and "subject librarians," because "they can spread the word both on open access and the repository on their daily conversations with the library’s users" is critical to building a "team" that will help "improve the provided services and increase the submission rates."
  • Example. Porter, George S. 2006. Let's get it started! Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 47.
    • Porter writes from his experience at the California Institute of Technology, noting that encouraging deposit is a "sociological and strategic" endeavor. To be successful in recruiting researcher support, Porter asserts, it is important to work toward securing senior faculty as early adopters, who "may view the proposition [of deposit] as a capstone/culmination/collected works project for their career." By illustrating one's case with data, a convincing argument may be made that "content in the IR is highly visible and read." These identified "opinion leaders" can become fruitful partners in the deposit of work to the institutional repository.
  • Example. Proven, Jackie, and Janet Aucock. 2011. Increasing uptake at St Andrews: Strategies for developing the research repository. ALISS Quarterly 6(3): 6-9.
    • Proven and Aucock sketch the development of the University of St Andrews repository, along with strategies that have been used successfully to encourage deposit. Simply put, they note "Actual staff on the ground devoting substantial time to interaction with researchers is crucial." In addition to added services that are headed by librarians, Proven and Aucock emphasize the importance of "[p]romotion of the repository [that] can raise awareness amongst our academics of the issues around copyright and full text dissemination, and influence attitudes towards open access."
  • Example. Rodrigues, Maria Eduarda, and António Moitinho Rodrigues. Forthcoming. Analyzing the performance of an institutional scientific repository – A case study. LIBER Quarterly.
    • This forthcoming work examines the Instituto Politécnico de Castelo Branco's institutional repository "with the aim of analyzing the performance of RCIPCB considering the evolution and growth in terms of users, archiving and self-archiving, the number of published documents (scientific) versus deposited documents in 2010 and the heterogeneity among communities/collections and its causes." Of the results presented, there is clear success (at "96.2%") in the "diffusion strategy," including conferences and newsletters, which is used to educate the community about the presence of the repository.
  • Example. Russell, Rosemary, and Michael Day. 2010. Institutional repository interaction with research users: A review of current practice. New Review of Academic Librarianship 16(Supplement1): 116-131.
    • In their literature review, Russell and Day impress the importance of engaging with one's local research community before launching a repository, so that services best mirror researcher needs at the outset. Additionally, Russell and Day note the importance of crafting advocacy messages that resonate with different communities that use the repository: "advocacy needs to be tailored to scholarly contexts using language that is meaningful to individual or group cultures." By being sensitive to different user cultures, there is a greater likelihood of garnering early adopters who will "network" the repository to their peers.
  • Example. Shieber, Stuart. 2011. The importance of dark deposit. The Occasional Pamphlet.
    • In his blog post listing seven benefits of dark deposits, articles for which metadata but not full text are available to users, Shieber notes, "Every time an author deposits an article dark is a learning moment reminding the author that distribution is important and distribution limitations are problematic"; as such, dark depositing serves as an educational tool.
  • Example. Smith, Colin, Sheila Chudasama, and Christopher Yates, 2010. Open Research Online - A self-archiving success story. In The 5th International Conference on Open Repositories, 6-9 July 2010, Madrid, Spain.
    • This case study from the Open University identifies advocacy and development as the cornerstones for building an institutional repository collection without a mandate. The advocacy methods were varied, from using social media for promotional efforts to attending department meetings. The efforts have attracted "63% of the OU’s journal output published in 2008 and 2009" and the repository managers are "getting around 36 full-text deposits per week, compared to a low of 2 per week before the advocacy/development campaign."
  • Example. Smith, Ina. 2012. Marketing & getting buy-in. In DSpace Technical Workshop: September 7-11, 2009, Stellenbosch, South Africa. University of Stellenbosch.
    • In this workshop presentation, the University of Stellenbosch's Smith offers several suggestions for "internal" and "external" marketing efforts to garner support for an institution's repository. Included as examples are "presentations," "demonstrations," and "individual appointments" for marketing the repository and generating interest in deposit.
  • Example. Troll Covey, Denise. 2011. Recruiting content for the institutional repository: The barriers exceed the benefits. Journal of Digital Information, 12(3): 2068.
    • Troll Covey reports on a detailed study of Carnegie Mellon University researchers and their attitudes toward institutional repositories, both in general and that of the university. It was clear that a more aggressive outreach and marketing campaign was needed, since many of the survey participants did not realize the university had a repository: "[t]he University Libraries need to develop a comprehensive campaign and targeted sales pitch."
  • Example. Welsh Repository Network. 2010. Advocacy discussion: Barriers and solutions.
    • The Welsh Repository Network offers several solutions to common challenges for repository deposits. Education is highlighted as important for generating buy-in to the institutional repository across many fronts: from gaining high-level support, which will create an "integration with other [university] systems and processes" and can lay the foundation for an institution-wide mandate, to building an understanding across the community of users of the benefits of depositing their work into the repository (e.g., a wider readership, public funding issues, author rights and copyright, etc.). With an informed authorship, support may follow.
  • Example. Yeomans, Joanne. 2006. CERN's Open Access E-print Coverage in 2006: Three Quarters Full and Counting. High Energy Physics Libraries Webzine.
    • Joanne Yeomans, of the CERN Library, discusses the CERN Document Server's (CDS) coverage. "Metadata harvesting is performed at such a level that the Library believes it retrieves bibliographic records for almost 100% of CERN's own documents." The high rate of full-text articles in CDS is attributable to a long-standing policy and digitization efforts by the library staff; additionally, the CERN Library staff introduces new staff to the deposit process and uses an internal bulletin to remind staff to deposit work. Future plans include following up with authors about specific works that have not yet been deposited.

Automated deposit tools

  1. BibApp
    • Example. Fenner, Martin. 2010. Self-motivated vs. mandated archiving. PLoS Blogs: Gobbledygook.
      • Fenner's list of motivators for self-deposit, from his perspective as an active researcher at Hannover Medical School, includes tools such as BibApp, which "showcases the scholarly work done by a particular researcher, research group, department or institution."
    • Example. Hanlon, Ann, and Marisa Ramirez. 2011. Asking for Permission: A Survey of Copyright Workflows for Institutional Repositories. portal: Libraries and the Academy 11(2): 683-702. [Note: This is a toll access article.]
      • In their 2009 survey of OpenDOAR-registered institutional repositories that studied copyright clearance activities, Hanlon and Ramirez note BibApp as an example of a tool that can be used to "formaliz[e] permissions workflows." That BibApp "automatically checks citations for deposit policy in SHERPA/RoMEO" reduces the individual effort of authors and library staff in copyright clearance associated with deposit.
    • Example. Salo, Dorothea. 2010. Press release: BibApp 1.0 released. SPARC-OAForum Message 5518.
      • "BibApp allows researchers and research groups to promote research, find collaborators on campus, and make research more accessible. It also allows libraries to better understand research happening in local departments, facilitate conversations about author rights with researchers, and ease the population of the institutional repository. Finally, BibApp allows campus administrators to achieve a clearer picture of collaboration and scholarly publishing trends on campus." BibApp software also "push[es]" articles into the institutional repository.
    • Example. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2010. BibApp 1.0 released. BibApp News.
      • BibApp, from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and the University of Wisconsin-Madison acts as a "gateway," which "matches researchers on your campus or research center with their publication data and mines that data to see collaborations, create visualizations of areas of research, and find experts in research areas." It works with "DSpace, EPrints, or Fedora," pushing publications into the institution's repository; features are detailed.
  2. DepositMO
    • Example. JISC, 2010. Modus Operandi for Repository Deposits.
      • Modus Operandi is a tool that offers authors a way to deposit "in-progress and completed works directly from authoring and content management applications." It works with DSpace and EPrints to create a "workflow connecting the user’s computer desktop, especially popular apps such as MS Office and Windows Explorer."
  3. Direct User Repository Access (DURA)
  4. EasyDeposit
    • Example. Lewis, Stuart. 2010. Deposit to multiple repositories. Stuart Lewis' Blog.
      • As a follow-on to the 2009 development of EasyDeposit, multiple-repository-deposit functionality has been added to this script. By ensuring that authors can deposit their work to several repositories with a single entry point, for example, "an institutional repository and a funder’s repository, and also perhaps a subject-based repository," then the likelihood of authors being comprehensive with their deposits is increased.
    • Example. Lewis, Stuart. 2009. EasyDeposit – SWORD deposit tool creator. Stuart Lewis' Blog.
      • EasyDeposit is introduced as "a toolkit for easily creating SWORD deposit web interfaces using PHP"; it was born out of a need to have "a generic SWORD deposit interface toolkit that allowed new deposit systems to be easily created." Two examples that were the impetus for EasyDeposit's development (from the University of Auckland Library) are given: Ph.D. candidates' thesis deposit and the archiving of a technical report series. The creation of such a workaround helps to make deposits easier for projects/constituents with specific, singular needs.
  5. Open Archives Initiative's Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)
    • Example. Lewis, Stuart. 2011. Technical standards in education, Part 3: Open repositories for scholarly communication. IBM developerWorks.
      • Lewis provides the history and foundations of institutional repositories and then introduces the importance of standards to repository interoperability to enable the "harvesting, searching, depositing, authentication, and describing [of] contents". Lewis then explains that "OAI-PMH allows search providers to harvest the raw structured metadata from repositories. This can yield more powerful search mechanisms as data is harvested in specific fields such as title, creator, abstract, and keywords."
  6. Open Access Repository Junction (OA-RJ)
    • Example. EDINA, 2010. OA-RJ API. Open Access Repository Junction.
    • Example. JISC, 2010. What’s in a name? OA-RJ Project Blog.
      • Open Access Repository Junction, funded by JISC, is a two-part tool. The first part identifies a depositable work (by location and metadata) and then offers a "list of possible targets to the client, and leaves the deposit process to the client". The second part deposits the works to relevant repositories. The project webpage indicates the aim is to "help assist the principal investigator to deposit in all the appropriate locations, and also make the whole deposit process as simple as possible."
  7. Open Depot
    • Example. JISC, 2010. Repositories: Take-up and embedding. Briefing paper for eResearch & IE call - 10/2010.
      • This JISC work is "intended to support bidders drafting proposals against the October 2010 JISC Grant Funding Call 15/10 for Infrastructure for Education and Research." Tools that had been in development are discussed, including "The Depot". The Depot was "one of the key projects of the JISC RepositoryNet...[that] provide[d] the UK academic community with an online deposit facility for eprints during the interim period while Institutional Repositories (IRs) were being set up." The tool proved useful to the UK community, so EDINA, one of the project developers, repurposed the tool for international use, and Open Depot was born.
  8. Organisation and Repository Identification (ORI)
    • Example. Dorward, Andrew David, Peter Burnhill, and Terry Sloan. 2012. The development of a socio-technical infrastructure to support open access publishing though institutional repositories. P1B: Shared Repository Services and Infrastructure LiveBlog, OR 2012: The 7th International Conference on Open Repositories: July 9-13, 2012, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
      • In their introduction of UK RepositoryNet+, an infrastructure that "will offer service support, helpdesk and technical support, and a service directory catalogue for anyone hoping to switch to [green] open access", Dorward et al. note that "[d]eposit tools" tools are in place currently. One of these tools is ORI, which will be "a standalone middleware tool for identifying academic organisations and associated repositories"; more information is available at the project website.
  9. PUMA
    • Example. Stumme, Gerd. 2009. PUMA - Project on Academic Publication Management started on August 1st. BibSonomy Blog.
      • PUMA aims to integrate deposit into an author's workflow and make explicit the benefits of deposit as follows: "the upload of a publication results automatically in an update of both the personal and institutional homepage, the creation of an entry in BibSonomy, an entry in the academic reporting system of the university, and its publication in the institutional repository." This output is in addition to PUMA's effort to "provide a publication management platform" to authors.
  10. RePosit
  11. Repository Junction (RJ) Broker
    • Example. Dorward, Andrew David, Peter Burnhill, and Terry Sloan. 2012. The development of a socio-technical infrastructure to support open access publishing though institutional repositories. P1B: Shared Repository Services and Infrastructure LiveBlog, OR 2012: The 7th International Conference on Open Repositories: July 9-13, 2012, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
      • In their introduction of UK RepositoryNet+, an infrastructure that "will offer service support, helpdesk and technical support, and a service directory catalogue for anyone hoping to switch to [green] open access", Dorward et al. note that "[d]eposit tools" tools are in place currently. One of these tools is RJ Broker, which will be "a standalone middleware tool for handling the deposit of research articles from a provider to multiple repositories"; more information is available at the project website.
  12. Simple Web-service Offering Repository Deposit (SWORD) (find an introductory video on SWORD 2.0 from Cottage Labs)
    • Example. COAR. 2012. Direct deposit by publisher. Preliminary report – Sustainable best practices for populating repositories, COAR.
      • The Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) has released a preliminary report on their efforts "to collect and disseminate sustainable, replicable best practices related to populating repositories." SWORD is identified in this report as a "deposit mechanism [that] offers a unified ingestion service and guarantees a robust transfer of manuscripts." Included in this discussion are PEER-created guidelines on "deposit, assisted deposit and self‐archiving" facilitated by SWORD.
    • Example. Jones, Richard. 2010. SWORD v2.0: Deposit lifecycle. JISC.
      • A project funded by UKOLN, SWORD aims to "push the standard towards supporting full repository deposit lifecycles...[which] will enable the repository to be integrated into a broader range of systems in the scholarly environment, by supporting an increased range of behaviours and use cases." SWORD v2.0 offers increased flexibility and interoperability that works with "DSpace, EPrints and Fedora, arXiv and a number of commercial systems"; additionally, there "is a Facebook deposit application, [and] Microsoft [has] developed an add on to Word which will deposit your documents into your archive, and likewise the Open Journal System".
    • Example. Lewis, Stuart. 2009. The SWORD course videos now online. Stuart Lewis' Blog.
      • Videos from "The SWORD Course" introducing SWORD, highlighting use cases, enumerating clients, and offering a toolkit for users are posted.
    • Example. Lewis, Stuart. 2011a. Technical standards in education, Part 3: Open repositories for scholarly communication. IBM developerWorks.
      • Lewis provides the history and foundations of institutional repositories and then introduces the importance of standards to repository interoperability to enable the "harvesting, searching, depositing, authentication, and describing [of] contents". He mentions that SWORD is the "standardized way to perform deposits of resources into repositories," which works as the converse action to OAI-PMH.
    • Example. Lewis, Stuart. 2011b. Technical standards in education, Part 4: Interoperable resource deposit using SWORD. IBM developerWorks.
      • As a follow-on to his above-mentioned part 3, Lewis "describes the SWORD protocol, why it was developed, possible use cases, and an overview of how it works." The included SWORD uses are as an "[i]ntegrated desktop client," "[m]ultiple deposit tool," "[a]utomated data deposit by laboratory equipment," "[r]epository to repository deposit," and [p]ublisher to repository deposit."
    • Example. Lewis, Stuart, Pablo de Castro, and Richard Jones. 2012. SWORD: Facilitating deposit scenarios. D-Lib Magazine 18(1/2): doi:10.1045/january2012-lewis.
      • This article illustrates the flexibility of the SWORD protocol, which enables deposit to repositories from publishers, the researcher's desktop, and more, and "describes the different use cases, how they fit into the scholarly lifecycle, and how SWORD facilitates them." The cases studies that are provided include links "to show real-life examples of the use cases in action."
    • Example. Russell, Rosemary, and Michael Day. 2010. Institutional repository interaction with research users: A review of current practice. New Review of Academic Librarianship 16(Supplement1): 116-131.
      • In their literature review, Russell and Day stress the importance of engaging with one's local research community before launching a repository, so that services best mirror researcher needs at the outset. While discussing the importance of making deposit easy, they mention SWORD as a "protocol" that is in use today to "support the bulk transfer of content into repositories."
    • Example. BioMed Central. 2010. BioMed Central partners with Massachusetts Institute of Technology Libraries to deposit open access articles automatically using SWORD protocol. SPARC-OAForum Message 5456.
      • BioMed Central briefly describes its partnership with MIT's "to set up an automatic feed of MIT articles...The SWORD protocol allows the institutional repository to receive newly published articles from any of BioMed Central's 200+ journals as soon as they are published, without the need for any effort on the part of the author and streamlining the deposit process for the repository administrator."

Copyright/author rights support

  • Example. COAR. 2012. Rights checking and submission services. Preliminary report – Sustainable best practices for populating repositories, COAR.
    • The Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) has released a preliminary report on their efforts "to collect and disseminate sustainable, replicable best practices related to populating repositories." Included in these initial results are examples from five institutions, including Griffith University, of efforts to make deposit easier for authors. Most of the listed institutions offer support in clearing copyright concerns, the form of which ranges from advising authors to contacting publishers to secure clearance.
  • Example. Giannoulakis, Stamatios, Petros Artemi, and Alexia Dini Kounoudes. 2012. Scholar publications and open access policies: The Ktisis case. In 13th International Conference of International Society for the Study of European Ideas: July 2-6, 2012, Nicosia, Cyprus.
    • A survey was conducted by Giannoulakis et al., aimed at revamping the Cyprus University of Technology's institutional repository policies. In addition to revealing that 71% of the university researchers do not deposit work in the repository because the "community prefer[s] to publish in commercial publisher journals," the survey respondents indicated that they currently do not "negotiate the terms and conditions with the publishers" and "89% would like the university to develop an author addendum policy." As a result, forthcoming efforts will be made by the library to "[d]evelop [an] author addendum policy."
  • Example. Hanlon, Ann, and Marisa Ramirez. 2011. Asking for Permission: A Survey of Copyright Workflows for Institutional Repositories. portal: Libraries and the Academy 11(2): 683-702. [Note: This is a toll access article.]
    • Hanlon and Ramirez's 2009 survey of OpenDOAR-registered institutional repositories revealed that, of the responding institutions, "librarians and library staff were the parties most likely to engage in copyright clearance activities for IRs." These activities include "contact[ing] publishers for permission to deposit" and "record[ing] publisher policies." While there are "many common copyright clearance practices" among institutions, the workflows are often informal and created locally, and Hanlon and Ramirez suggest "developing IR copyright clearance 'best practices'."
  • Example. Kim, Jihyun. 2010. Faculty self-archiving: Motivations and barriers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(9): 1909–1922. [Note: This is a toll access article, requiring subscription.]
    • Kim surveyed and interviewed 684 faculty members from 17 Carnegie institutions that use DSpace for their institutional repository, and found seven factors to be "significantly related" to deposit behavior: "copyright concerns, additional time and effort, and age...academic reward, altruism, self-archiving culture, and technical skills." She suggests that "confusion over copyright issues can be addressed by providing services for copyright management." By offering copyright support, the "legal ramifications of self-archiving their publications" would be clarified.
  • Example. Wirth, Andrea. 2010. Oregon State University Libraries’ policy. In ALA Annual Meeting: ALCTS Scholarly Communications Interest Group, July 27, 2010, Washington, DC.
    • In her discussion of the creation of and support for the Oregon State University's Library faculty OA policy, and related OSU faculty policies, Wirth notes some challenges that were addressed. A particularly fruitful partnership has been with the "OSU Advancement News and Communication" office; by ensuring that the works profiled by the News and Communication group have been deposited in the repository, then a wider readership for the faculty member is secured. Wirth indicates that faculty "are reviewing their licenses and are becoming aware of the fact that through their research might be highlighted by OSU news (an honor in and of itself) the news staff have been unable to share the articles with other news outlets that pick up the stories." The copyright support the library provides ensures that "the appropriate research article [is] deposited."

Customization/value-added tools

  • Example. COAR. 2012. Automated downloading of citation data. Preliminary report – Sustainable best practices for populating repositories, COAR.
    • The Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) has released a preliminary report on their efforts "to collect and disseminate sustainable, replicable best practices related to populating repositories." A grant-funded project aimed at "batch loading scholarly article citations" as a way "to efficiently load large numbers of faculty citations...as a means of growing the IR" was undertaken at Ohio Digital Resource Commons. Documentation of the project is available here.
  • Example. Fenner, Martin. 2010. Self-motivated vs. mandated archiving. PLoS Blogs: Gobbledygook.
    • Fenner's list of motivators for self-deposit, from his perspective as an active researcher at Hannover Medical School, includes institutional repositories hosting "primary research data" and integrating the repository content with journal submission. An example of such a tool that Fenner mentions is eSciDoc, which "include[s] storing, manipulating, enriching, disseminating, and publishing not only of the final results of the research process, but of all intermediate steps as well."
  • Example. Palmer, Carole L., Lauren C. Teffeau, and Mark P. Newman. 2008. Strategies for institutional repository development: A case study of three evolving initiatives. Library Trends, 57(2): 142-167.
    • Palmer et al. offer a case study of three libraries and their approaches to filling their institutional repositories with content. One of the institutions employes a "software specialist who leads repository design customizations and functionality enhancements," which are tailored to meet "the needs and interests of faculty."
  • Example. Ponsati, Agnès, and Pablo de Castro. 2010. Repository increases visibility. Research Information.
    • Ponsati and de Castro discuss the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas's (CSIC) efforts to populate its institutional repository, which was launched with an "OA strategy [that] aims mainly to increase the visibility of its research output." A near-term goal for the CSIC is to create APIs that will enable publication lists from the institutional repository to be repackaged "as annual-report-building-applications, author or departmental web pages or standardised CV formats".
  • Example. Poynder, Richard. 2011. The OA interviews: Bernard Rentier, Rector of the University of Liège. Open and Shut?
    • Poynder interviews Rentier, of the University of Liege, who discusses the university's mandate, which has encouraged high researcher participation. Success of ORBi is aided by efforts to "demonstrate to our authors that the system has actually been designed for their own benefit." Speaking to the advantages of deposit for authors, beyond promotion, Rentier notes that ORBi "provides a single point of entry, but multiple output options, thereby allowing them to generate CVs and publication lists etc.; and it provides a tool to evaluate the quality of their research; and an efficient personal marketing tool."
  • Example. Proudman, Vanessa. 2008. Overview of services provided by six good practices populating repositories and services in Europe. Stimulating the population of repositories: A research project, Tilburg University.
    • In her work, Proudman examines the methods of six institutional repositories to encourage author deposit. Several "services" are noted that add value for users in all six case studies; for example, automated publication lists, data storage, and RSS feeds were employed, depending on the needs of the local environment. The included table illustrates the numerous value-added services that were available at the studied institutions.
  • Example. Russell, Rosemary, and Michael Day. 2010. Institutional repository interaction with research users: A review of current practice. New Review of Academic Librarianship 16(Supplement1): 116-131.
    • In their literature review, Russell and Day impress the importance of engaging with one's local research community before launching a repository, so that services best mirror researcher needs at the outset. They also indicate there is value to be added by "integrating them [repositories] into a much wider context of diverse information systems." Cornell's VIVO and the University of Oxford's BRII projects are ntoed as examples of such "information integration."
  • Example. Sale, Arthur, Marc Couture, Eloy Rodrigues, Leslie Carr, and Stevan Harnad. Forthcoming. Open access mandates and the "fair dealing" button. In Dynamic fair dealing: Creating Canadian culture online, ed. Rosemary J. Coombe and Darren Wershler. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
    • Sale et al. present the history of preprint and reprint sharing "by mail, even before the scholarly journal appeared" as the backdrop for the creation of a "‘Request-a-copy’...‘Email Eprint Request’...‘Fair Dealing’...[or] ‘Fair Use’ Button" in institutional repositories as a way to reestablish "would-be readers [with the ability] to request that the author email the eprint to them for individual research purposes under the provisions of fair dealing in the world’s Copyright Acts." EPrints and DSpace both have this functionality developed, which allows works that are either under embargo or restricted from OA distribution by publisher demand to still be deposited and shared in a limited fashion, so that "Researchers from all disciplines can be confident that the couple of clicks required to give a fellow researcher access to their Closed Access article is legal... and fair." Details of the functionality and uptake of the "button" at the University of Southampton, University of Stirling, and the University of Minho are provided.
  • Example. Smith, Colin, Sheila Chudasama, and Christopher Yates, 2010. Open Research Online - A self-archiving success story. In The 5th International Conference on Open Repositories, 6-9 July 2010, Madrid, Spain.
    • This case study from the Open University identifies advocacy and development as the cornerstones for building an institutional repository collection without a mandate. The development methods were varied, ranging from creating "gatekeeper controlled groups" to offering embedded feeds. The efforts have attracted "63% of the OU’s journal output published in 2008 and 2009" and the repository managers are "getting around 36 full-text deposits per week, compared to a low of 2 per week before the advocacy/development campaign."
  • Example. Troll Covey, Denise. 2011. Recruiting content for the institutional repository: The barriers exceed the benefits. Journal of Digital Information, 12(3): 2068.
    • Troll Covey reports on a detailed study of Carnegie Mellon University researchers and their attitudes toward institutional repositories, both in general and that of the university. Of the several perceived impediments to deposit that were identified from the surveyed community, providing added value from deposit in the repository was essential, in particular, "a service or benefit they earnestly want but don’t currently have". Examples of such efforts that were raised in the focus groups include the following: integrated systems, so that updates to personal/lab websites would update the repository; citation generators for end-of-year reporting; data and media deposit, along with supplemental materials; etc.

Ease of use

  • Example. Harnad, Stevan. 2010. Simplify OA deposit but leave it in the mandatee's hands. Open Access Archivangelism.
    • Stevan Harnad cites MIT's brief metadata requirements for institutional repository submission as an exemplary author-friendly policy. Harnad notes "All the power of self-archiving (and of self-archiving mandates from institutions and funders) comes from the fact that it is the author and the author's institution (and funder) that does it, mandates it, and monitors compliance." As such, he does not support MIT's (and other institutions') moves to facilitate publisher deposit, and instead encourages a clear definition of responsibility and an ease of compliance for authors.
  • Example. Lewis, Stuart. 2009. Email your repository. Stuart Lewis' Blog.
    • Stuart Lewis discusses a UKOLN-created Thunderbird plug-in that enables institutional repository deposit, and emphasizes that the strength of this deposit method is that email is a trusted, familiar tool with faculty/researchers. Lewis introduces a script that is a general version of the Thunderbird tool and is usable with other email clients, and discusses its potential for increasing repository deposit.
  • Example. Ponsati, Agnès, and Pablo de Castro. 2010. Repository increases visibility. Research Information.
    • Ponsati and de Castro discuss the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas's (CSIC) efforts to populate its institutional repository, which was launched with an "OA strategy [that] aims mainly to increase the visibility of its research output." Informational sessions are delivered to each department, and deposits are "synchronized" in that metadata are pulled off of departmental websites and input to the repository by IT staff, leaving the researchers with the task of simply uploading the work at the appropriate time. A proposed project is to couple the CSIC's repository with subject repositories so that authors need to deposit their paper to only one location, with interoperability ensuring that the work appears in all relevant repositories.
  • Example. Sale, Arthur. 2010. Advice on filling your repository. SPARC-OAForum Message 5427.
    • Arthur Sale, of the University of Tasmania, mentions the benefit of providing depositing authors the means to download the corpus of their work, even those titles that are "restricted," from anywhere. Doing so facilitates collaboration, "because it is like carrying a no-weight library of all your publications with you when you travel internationally."
  • Example. Welsh Repository Network. 2010. Advocacy discussion: Barriers and solutions.
    • The Welsh Repository Network offers several solutions to common challenges for repository deposits. Providing instructional materials (e.g., a video showing the deposit process), drafting Ph.D. students and department administrative assistants to deposit work on behalf of authors, and offering self-deposit (along with a suggestion to solicit help from Ph.D. students and administrative assistants) are three suggested methods for streamlining the process of deposit. Also mentioned is using "SHERPA RoMEO/include API on repository front page" to help clarify copyright concerns at the point of need and providing an easily accessed FAQs page and collection policy.

Embedding

  • Example. COAR. 2012. SPARC Open Access Meeting notes. COAR Newsletter.
    • Brief highlights from the SPARC 2012 Open Access Meeting, a forum for discussion on "Open Access issues including policy issues, author rights, Open Access publishing, and repositories," are presented. Tyler Walters, from Virginia Tech, noted that by "automatically captur[ing] metadata as defined by the data producers and provid[ing] ways for researchers to mark up their data," institutional repositories "are increasingly being designed to support research groups 'from beginning to end.'" Additionally, "toolkits designed to support different ways to view and work with data..., support collaboration and communication by research teams, and provide general tools to support working groups" have embedded repositories into research "ecosystems".
  • Example. Russell, Rosemary, and Michael Day. 2010. Institutional repository interaction with research users: A review of current practice. New Review of Academic Librarianship 16(Supplement1): 116-131.
    • In their literature review, Russell and Day impress the importance of engaging with one's local research community before launching a repository, so that services best mirror researcher needs at the outset. They also note the potential to be found in "integrat[ing] deposit and other repository interactions into research practice and workflows" so that the institutional repository becomes "'intimately embedded' in the current practice of scientists."
  • Example. Troll Covey, Denise. 2011. Recruiting content for the institutional repository: The barriers exceed the benefits. Journal of Digital Information, 12(3): 2068.
    • Troll Covey reports a detailed study of Carnegie Mellon University researchers and their attitudes toward institutional repositories, both in general and that of the university. Of the several perceived impediments to deposit that were identified from the surveyed community, "'[c]ivic pride,' as one participant called it, usage reports, and long-term access were insufficient motivation" to participate in the local repository. It was noted that "if deposit was aligned with existing workflows such that it could be accomplished with little investment of time and effort," then the research community would be more inclined to actively deposit.

Funding allocation

  • Example. Proudman, Vanessa. 2007. Minho University Institutional Repository. Minho University, Braga, Portugal: A university repository where a mandate to deposit, financial incentives and strong advocacy can transform an IR’s population. Stimulating the population of repositories: A research project, Tilburg University.
    • As one of six case studies comprising a larger research project, Proudman explored Minho University's efforts to encourage author deposit to the institutional repository. One of the methods was financial incentives that were awarded to each department and center as a whole by level of participation. A point system was derived in which documents were valued by type and age, where newly published, peer-reviewed work was the most "valuable"; preprints and older works also earned points, but to a lesser degree. The results were surprising: "As a result of the financial rewards and policy, from January to December 2005, 2813 documents were deposited in the IR (41% journal articles and 40% conference papers). This was an increase of about 800% on the previous year."

Metrics

  • Example. Baba, Kensuke, Masao Mori, Eisuke Ito, and Sachio Hirokawa. 2011. A feedback system on institutional repository. The Third International Conference on Resource Intensive Applications and Services (INTENSIVE 2011): May 22-27, 2011, Venice/Mestre, Italy.
    • Baba et al. note the potential to be found in usage metrics for encouraging researcher deposits. Citation counts and basic download numbers are available already through DSpace and Google Analytics, they note, but to further encourage deposit Baba et al. developed a nuanced feedback system that "analyzed co-occurrence on the accesses of the same reader," which was linked with Kyushu University's "researcher database" so the statistics would be available to each researcher with authentication.
  • Example. Bell, Suzanne, and Nathan Sarr. 2010. Case study: Re-engineering an institutional repository to engage users. New Review of Academic Librarianship 16(Supplement 1): 77-89.
    • Bell and Sarr discuss their research project profiling user needs leading to the development of University of Rochester's IR+. Usage statistics prove to be very valuable to researchers and "counts provide quantifiable evidence, and [are] a simple and effective way to show how the repository is providing a valuable outlet for their work."
  • Example. Brown, Josh, Kathy Sadler, and Martin Moyle. 2010. Influencing the Deposit of Electronic Theses in UK HE: Report on a sector-wide survey into thesis deposit and open access. University College London.
    • This JISC-funded study explored policies on, practices surrounding, and "barriers to the electronic deposit of e-theses." The authors identify a powerful incentive that has not been used to its full potential: "[the] ability to demonstrate the impact of open access theses." Standard metrics, common plug-ins, and "the effective use of third-party resources" are mentioned as recommendations for improving the use of metrics in encouraging e-thesis deposit.
  • Example. Dorward, Andrew David, Peter Burnhill, and Terry Sloan. 2012. The development of a socio-technical infrastructure to support open access publishing though institutional repositories. P1B: Shared Repository Services and Infrastructure LiveBlog, OR 2012: The 7th International Conference on Open Repositories: July 9-13, 2012, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
    • In their introduction of UK RepositoryNet+, an infrastructure that "will offer service support, helpdesk and technical support, and a service directory catalogue for anyone hoping to switch to [green] open access", Dorward et al. note that "benchmarking" tools are in place currently. See the website for more information on these "[t]ools that may be useful".
  • Example. Kim, Jihyun. 2010. Faculty self-archiving: Motivations and barriers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(9): 1909–1922. [Note: This is a toll access article, requiring subscription.]
    • Kim surveyed and interviewed 684 faculty members from 17 Carnegie institutions that use DSpace for their institutional repository, and found seven factors to be "significantly related" to deposit behavior: "copyright concerns, additional time and effort, and age...academic reward, altruism, self-archiving culture, and technical skills." Because altruism and self-archiving culture were noted as positive factors relating to deposit in institutional repositories, Kim explored whether the respondents felt that "self-archiving resulted in their research work being cited more frequently"; surprisingly, "the majority of faculty participants...were unaware of the evidence of a citation advantage," which suggests that a greater use of metrics may highlight the advantages of posting work to an institutional repository.
  • Example. Ponsati, Agnès, and Pablo de Castro. 2010. Repository increases visibility. Research Information.
    • Ponsati and de Castro discuss the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas's (CSIC) efforts to populate its institutional repository, which was launched with an "OA strategy [that] aims mainly to increase the visibility of its research output." As such, the CSIC has added "a complete module of statistics...[that lets] the authors measure the effects of depositing their work in Digital.CSIC on its visibility."
  • Example. Pontika, Nancy. 2012. Some thoughts on institutional repositories. Repositories Support Project blog.
    • Following a presentation at the University of Lincoln, Pontika offers her "thoughts concerning institutional repositories, their management and value." Pontika posits that demonstrating "who visits your repository, from which part of the world, which material is being downloaded, how many times, etc." is a valuable way to "bring your staff closer to your repository."
  • Example. Sale, Arthur. 2010. Advice on filling your repository. SPARC-OAForum Message 5427.
    • Arthur Sale, of the University of Tasmania, discusses several methods for increasing deposits, with citation metrics being a successful means of advocating for deposit. He mentions Anne-Will Harzing’s Publish or Perish tool as a way to illustrate "how online access...can be used to develop sophisticated metrics of research impact." These metrics may be used to "deliver a research record summary" for each researcher, which may be used in performance evaluation (though Sale cautions against using institutional repository metrics for promotion). Download reports can be helpful for depositing authors.
  • Example. Smith, Courtney. 2010. It’s not just about citation counts anymore: Usage reports incentivize repository participation at Butler and Wollongong. Digital Commons.
    • Courtney Smith writes about Butler University's use of download metrics, which provide immediate and welcome feedback to authors (and deans) on usage, which appear to be popular: "Time and again, we hear from IR managers something like, 'Once our faculty members start to get those monthly download reports for their articles, they come back to me with more articles to post.'" Efforts by the University of Wollongong include "activity reports for every participating department [which include] number of items uploaded to the repository, number of downloads, most active authors, and 'fun facts.'" These reports offer authors "a sense of competition and accomplishment," and deans a measure of their department's output, which can aid in promotion decisions.
  • Example. University of Manchester. 2012. Institutional Repositories and measuring research impact. Manchester eScholar blog.
    • In a University of Manchester eScholar blog post that opens with a quick discussion of research impact, the question is posed, "how can institutional repositories (IRs) capitalise on this broadening definition of research impact in order to benefit researchers?" In response, the university is making view metrics and citation metrics available to researchers (requiring authentication), and will begin offering "usage and deposit data as appropriate on public-facing web pages."

Personalization

  • Example. Millard, David E., Hugh C. Davis, Yvonne Howard, Patrick McSweeney, Sebastien Francois, Debra Morris, Marcus Ramsden, and Su White. 2010. MePrints: Building user centred repositories. University of Southampton.
    • Millard et al. discuss the creation of MePrints, which serves to "give users a home within a repository, act as a focus for their work, and help them feel more ownership of the work that they deposit." This and other efforts to create personalized researcher spaces with repository add-ons ensure a dynamic "community space" that will ideally draw users in to engage with the repository and the larger community.
  • Example. Pontika, Nancy. 2012. Some thoughts on institutional repositories. Repositories Support Project blog.
    • Following a presentation at the University of Lincoln, Pontika offers her "thoughts concerning institutional repositories, their management and value." Included in her discussion is the benefit of filling "staff directory webpages...by their institutional repository submissions." Doing so ensures "a complete publications list for each author," which helps to "increase both the staffs’ and the institution’s research visibility."
  • Example. Sale, Arthur. 2010. Advice on filling your repository. SPARC-OAForum Message 5427.
    • Arthur Sale, of the University of Tasmania, suggests including a means for researchers to link to an up-to-date and comprehensive list of their deposited papers on their personal website, and provides an example of his own work.
  • Example. University of Rochester
    • Example. Bell, Suzanne, and Nathan Sarr. 2010. Case study: Re-engineering an institutional repository to engage users. New Review of Academic Librarianship 16(Supplement 1): 77-89.
      • Bell and Sarr discuss the research project profiling user needs leading to the development of University of Rochester's IR+. Beyond the addition of the "contributor pages" to the repository, which included "statistics...download counts...[and] the most popular work" and gave faculty members the ability to "add and remove files and correct metadata," the University added a "user workspace" that gives researchers "their own web-based file system" to "download-modify-upload" and share works in progress, as well as a "portfolio page" that "gives users control over the presentation of their work." Reaction to the updates have been positive, with multidisciplinary uptake in "numbers [that] are unprecedented compared to our previous system."
    • Foster, Nancy Fried, and Susan Gibbons. 2005. Understanding faculty to improve content recruitment for institutional repositories. D-Lib Magazine 11(1): doi:10.1045/january2005-foster.
      • The University of Rochester’s “Researcher Page” offers faculty personalization within its institutional repository. This DSpace add-on enables the “collocation of the material into collections and the labeling of those collections” by each faculty member. Interested faculty build their personal research collection, which can list contact information, research interests, and a photo alongside their work. By doing so, the researcher creates an individualized space within the repository, branding work as her/his own.
    • Kolowich, Steve. 2010. Encouraging open access. Inside Higher Ed News.
      • The University of Rochester has created "an online 'workspace'...where [researchers] can upload and preserve different versions of an article they are working on" in an effort to "to make putting the piece into the repository a seamless part of the work flow." In addition to creating a designated space for researchers to share their works in process, the repository also gives faculty the ability to "archive and organize the articles they have published there on personal 'researcher pages'".
    • Suber, Peter. 2006. Connecting authorship with self-archiving. Open Access News.
      • Peter Suber comments on the press release of the University of Rochester's grant reward from the Institute of Museum and Library Services; the award was used "to create a new type of authoring system for the next generation of academics, who will then link to our institutional repository for preservation and self-publishing of completed manuscripts." Prior research efforts drove the development efforts for the new system. Find the full press release here.

Promotion

  • Example. Armbruster, Chris. 2011. Open access policy implementation: First results compared. Learned Publishing 24(4): 311–324.
    • Armbruster's study explores "open access policy implementation and draws some conclusions about progress so far" at 10 institutions and funding agencies. Included in this discussion are the efforts undertaken at the University of Zurich, "an early policy adopter," which includes the university's decision that "only publications registered in the repository are included in the annual reports."
  • Example. Henderson, Ian. 2010. Open-access and institutional repositories in fire literature. Fire Technology: doi:10.1007/s10694-010-0198-1. [Note: This is a toll access article.]
    • Henderson discusses the benefits of Canada's National Research Council's Institute for Research in Construction. Included in this article is a discussion of the library's role as the "technical and administrative" managers of the deposit of works to the repository. The researchers are "encouraged" to provide their work for deposit with the following incentive: "When a researcher is eligible for promotion, only official bibliographies generated from the NRC-IRC Publications Database are accepted for review by the promotion committee." By implementing this policy, the institutional repository "has become part of the research culture at NRC-IRC."
  • Example. Pontika, Nancy. 2012. Some thoughts on institutional repositories. Repositories Support Project blog.
    • Following a presentation at the University of Lincoln, Pontika offers her "thoughts concerning institutional repositories, their management and value." Included in this discussion is the opportunity to be found in the automated linking of repository deposits with annual research reporting. Doing so "saves a great amount of time of composing these reports yourself, and will also send a message to the institution’s staff that 'if you are not in our repository, you will not be in our report too'!"
  • Example. Standeford, Dugie. 2012. Changes coming for open access to research in Europe. Intellectual Property Watch.
    • Standeford primarily reports on the Wellcome Trust's recent "[crack] down on researchers who don’t comply with their policies." However, the University of Liege is mentioned as an institution that similarly "require[s] deposit and will only take into account deposited research for performance reviews." For more details, see the January 3, 2009 Open Access Newsletter article that points to an English version of the University's mandate, which indicates that "only those references introduced in ORBi ["Open Repository & Bibliography"] will be taken into consideration as the official list of publications accompanying any curriculum vitæ in all evaluation procedures."

Proxy deposit/harvesting

  • Example. Burnhill, Peter, Pablo de Castro, Jim Dowling, Richard Jones, and Mogens Sandfaer. Handling repository-related interoperability issues: The SONEX Workgroup. In Pre-Proceedings of the 2nd DL.org Workshop "Making Digital Libraries Interoperable: Challenges and Approaches": September 9-10, 2010, Glasgow, Scotland, ed. Donatella Castelli, Yannis Ioannidis, and Seamus Ross, 45-56.
    • Burnhill et al. report on the proceedings from the SONEX workshop, aiming to "describe, analyse and make recommendations on deposit opportunities". Automation and interoperability were highlighted, with an acknowledgment that "Whatever a repository manager holds is potentially of interest to another". Several case studies were highlighted as methods for increasing institutional repository deposit, including institutional/national-level "Current Research Information System...transfer of objects plus agreed metadata into all relevant IRs," publisher deposit on behalf of authors, and "[f]unders and subject repositories as use communities" that "share the work of establishing relationships and technical interfaces" to ensure that publications appear in all relevant repositories.
  • Example. COAR. 2012b. SPARC Open Access Meeting notes. COAR Newsletter.
    • Brief highlights from the SPARC 2012 Open Access Meeting, a forum for discussion on "Open Access issues including policy issues, author rights, Open Access publishing, and repositories," are presented. Ellen Finnie Duranceau of MIT offered a "12-point strategy" for increasing deposit, with "one item of particular note: 'leverage all sources' for acquiring content." MIT's practice of using "automated ingest tools" and "'scrap[ing]' the MIT domain to see what other papers they find within their institutional domain" both increases the number of works in the institutional repository and "send[s] the message to faculty that the library is doing everything they can to get content into the repository before contacting faculty and asking them to find their papers."
  • Example. Frantsvåg, Jan Erik. 2012. The – Hopeless? – Quest for gold. ScieCom Info 8(1).
    • Frantsvåg, of the University of Tromsø, offers commentary on the challenges of securing deposits for the university's institutional repository. Included in his discussion is the process by which the library harvests work, from reviewing publications reports to consulting DOAJ and SHERPA/RoMEO.
  • Example. Harnad, Stevan. 2010. Funders Should Mandate Institutional Deposit (and, if desired, central harvest). Open Access Archivangelism.
    • In a policy article, Stevan Harnad posits that to increase deposits to institutional repositories, mandates need to be aimed at populating local institutional repositories rather than central repositories, like PubMed. Such a policy would be actionable with software, such as SWORD, that would "[ensure] central collections are harvested from distributed IRs, rather than being designated as the loci of direct deposit." Central repository collections would still be populated, but the onus on the author would be to deposit only once to their local institution's repository.
  • Example. Henderson, Ian. 2010. Open-access and institutional repositories in fire literature. Fire Technology: doi:10.1007/s10694-010-0198-1. [Note: This is a toll access article.]
    • Henderson discusses the benefits of Canada's National Research Council's Institute for Research in Construction. Included in this article is a discussion of the library's role as the "technical and administrative" managers of the deposit of works to the repository. As such, the "staff enters all bibliographic information, creates standardized PDFs for the Web, 'alerts' clients to new material available and verifies that new publications are indexed by Internet search engines."
  • Example. MIT Libraries, 2010. MIT’s Open Access policy, one year later. MIT News.
    • This MIT News article highlights MIT's efforts to work with cooperative publishers to support the deposit of MIT author-published work into the institutional repository by "[capturing] copies of the final published PDF for deposit, so that authors do not need to take any action in order to have their articles openly accessible."
  • Example. Palmer, Carole L., Lauren C. Teffeau, and Mark P. Newman. 2008. Strategies for institutional repository development: A case study of three evolving initiatives. Library Trends, 57(2): 142-167.
    • Palmer et al. offer a case study of three libraries and their approaches to filling their institutional repositories with content. One of the profiled institutions "brokered arrangements directly with publishers to acquire copyrighted, peer-reviewed journal papers written by their faculty" and "coordinated with departments for bulk ingests."
  • Example. Porter, George S. 2006. Let's get it started! Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 47.
    • Porter writes from his experience at the California Institute of Technology, noting that encouraging deposit is a "sociological and strategic" endeavor. In addition to working with senior researchers, as noted above, Porter suggests harvesting "low-hanging fruit," which includes "the intellectual heritage of your institution from the material which presents the least difficulties with respect to publisher permissions." He also mentions "[o]ther rich sources of readily available content includ[ing]...technical report series, working paper collections, theses, and dissertations."
  • Example. Proudman, Vanessa. 2007b. CERN Document Server. Critical mass gained! Depositing and reclaiming particle physics content. Stimulating the population of repositories: A research project, Tilburg University.
    • As one of six case studies comprising a larger research project, Proudman explored CERN's efforts to encourage author deposit to the institutional repository. Several factors contribute CERN's high deposit rate, including the following: "Departments are responsible for depositing content into the system mainly on behalf of its authors" and "Content not deposited by CERN researchers is harvested by the library." Proxy deposit, therefore, is a key component to CERN's deposit strategy.
  • Example. Proven, Jackie, and Janet Aucock. 2011. Increasing uptake at St Andrews: Strategies for developing the research repository. ALISS Quarterly 6(3): 6-9.
    • Proven and Aucock sketch the development of the University of St Andrews repository, along with strategies that have been used successfully to encourage deposit. Proven and Aucock again mention the value of MERIT's metadata, which can be "easily searched and downloaded," along with the university's use of a new "Current Research Information System (CRIS)," which works together with the repository. With CRIS, "the library can monitor the research outputs added to Pure as researchers update their publication lists, contacting people who are engaging with the system."
  • Example. Russell, Rosemary, and Michael Day. 2010. Institutional repository interaction with research users: A review of current practice. New Review of Academic Librarianship 16(Supplement1): 116-131.
    • In their literature review, Russell and Day impress the importance of engaging with one's local research community before launching a repository, so that services best mirror researcher needs at the outset. They also highlight the value of "flexible repository architectures" that enable metadata and content sharing, and harvesting. Russell and Day mention Economists Online as an example of a subject repository that is populated with content "from 22 institutional repositories across Europe."
  • Example. Seney, Lauren, and Jim Heller. 2012. Law scholarship repository scores millionth download. News and events, William & Mary.
    • A news release citing the 1 millionth download of a work, two years into the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository's existence, notes that at its inception, "under the oversight of librarian Lauren Seney who directed a small army of student assistants, almost 5,000 documents were added in the first six months of the repository's existence."
  • Example. Troll Covey, Denise. 2011. Recruiting content for the institutional repository: The barriers exceed the benefits. Journal of Digital Information, 12(3): 2068.
    • Troll Covey reports on a detailed study of Carnegie Mellon University researchers and their attitudes toward institutional repositories, both in general and that of the university. Of the several perceived impediments to deposit that were identified from the surveyed community, the time required to send the right version and check the publisher's copyright policy was enough of a deterrent that finding ways to make deposit less time intensive was important. In response, it was suggested that the annual publications reporting system be altered, requiring authors to include metadata and a copy of the final version of their work with each publication that would allow for harvest by library staff.
  • Example. Wordofa, Kebede Hundie, and Poloko Ntokwane-Oseafiana. 2009. Open access and institutional repositories in agricultural sciences: The case of Botswana College of Agriculture (BCA). Agricultural Information Worldwide 2(3): 120-128.
    • Wordofa and Ntokwane-Oseafiana define open access and institutional repositories and discuss their benefits, particularly as related to researchers in developing countries, before describing the institutional repository development process at the Botswana College of Agriculture (BCA). Included is the intensive work of the library staff on "content harvesting, digitization of print materials, and the creation of metadata," which populate the repository. [Note: BCA's institutional repository is not publicly released yet; currently it is being used as an internal resource, which will presumably change once the "development" stage is complete.]
  • Example. Yeomans, Joanne. 2006. CERN's Open Access E-print Coverage in 2006: Three Quarters Full and Counting. High Energy Physics Libraries Webzine.
    • Joanne Yeomans, of the CERN Library, discusses the CERN Document Server's (CDS) coverage. "Metadata harvesting is performed at such a level that the Library believes it retrieves bibliographic records for almost 100% of CERN's own documents." The high rate of full-text articles in CDS is attributable to a long-standing policy and digitization efforts by the library staff; additionally, CERN has permission from the American Physical Society to upload CERN-authored content to the CDS.
Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/?title=Filling_the_repository&oldid=1341"