Content uploaded by Priti Jain
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Priti Jain on Jan 03, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Library Review
New trends and future applications/directions of institutional repositories in academic
institutions
Priti Jain
Article information:
To cite this document:
Priti Jain, (2011),"New trends and future applications/directions of institutional repositories in academic
institutions", Library Review, Vol. 60 Iss 2 pp. 125 - 141
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00242531111113078
Downloaded on: 03 January 2016, At: 01:11 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 62 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2664 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Rowena Cullen, Brenda Chawner, (2010),"Institutional repositories: assessing their value to the
academic community", Performance Measurement and Metrics, Vol. 11 Iss 2 pp. 131-147 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14678041011064052
Paul Genoni, (2004),"Content in institutional repositories: a collection management issue", Library
Management, Vol. 25 Iss 6/7 pp. 300-306 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01435120410547968
Michelle Armstrong, (2014),"Institutional repository management models that support faculty research
dissemination", OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives, Vol. 30 Iss 1 pp.
43-51 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OCLC-07-2013-0028
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:403767 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
New trends and future
applications/directions
of institutional repositories
in academic institutions
Priti Jain
Department of Library and Information Studies, University of Botswana,
Gaborone, Botswana
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the recent literature about institutional repositories
(IRs) including the benefits and possible obstacles of setting up an IR. It will also discuss librarians’
and authors’ participative roles and open access. In conclusion, the paper aims to consider the future of
IRs and finally makes recommendations for their successful implementation in academic institutions.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper is based on the recently published literature
discussing current trends in IRs; although, some historical reference is also necessary to provide
background to the open access movement and the early development of IRs. Given that the paper is an
account of the history and current status of IRs, a formal documented methodology is not applicable.
Findings – The discussion suggests that in spite of all the obstacles to successful implementation,
including associated negative perceptions, IRs have been increasingly recognised as a vital tool for
scholarly communication and an important source of institutional visibility and a viable source of
institutional knowledge management.
Research limitations/implications – This paper is an expression of opinion about current trends
and future applications of IRs. It is not based on any formal methodology. This paper will be useful for
librarians, academic staff and academic institutions generally, especially in developing countries
where IRs are still in a developmental stage. Therefore, some of the general recommendations may not
be as relevant for those institutions with well-established and flourishing IRs.
Practical implications – The paper is aimed at institutions with low-use repositories. It can be used
to persuade management to establish institutional policies and it can also be helpful in clarifying the
role of the library. It is also aimed at institutions considering initial development of an IR. The paper
outlines the implications for IR practice for different groups, namely authors, librarians and academic
administrative staff. It could, therefore, be used to persuade and influence different sets of stakeholders
at institutions with under-populated or embryonic IRs, about the value of open access, the importance
of depositing material and the potential functionality afforded by IR packages.
Originality/value – The paper provides a review of the status of IRs and brings together topics
previously reported on in isolation.
Keywords Digital storage, Universities, Librarians, Knowledge management, Developing countries
Paper type General review
1. Introduction
Today, knowledge is considered as a strategic resource. It is inevitable that we create,
store, share and transfer information and knowledge in a continuous flow and for the
advancement of society. For more than a decade, academic institutions have struggled
with how to manage the collective, digital intell ectual output they produce. Clearly, due to
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0024-2535.htm
Institutional
repositories
125
Received 10 April 2010
Reviewed 13 June 2010
Revised 25 July 2010
Accepted 29 July 2010
Library Review
Vol. 60 No. 2, 2011
pp. 125-141
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0024-2535
DOI 10.1108/00242531111113078
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
technological advancement, it is easy to create and access digital material.
Paradoxically, however, while there is potential for instantaneous access, all too often
many materials are not usually made accessible to many users and they remain
marooned in the authors’ computers ( Jain and Bentley, 2008). Also, the escalating costs
of electronic and/or print subscriptions from for-profit commercial publishers prohibit
subscription and it is becoming increasingly unrealistic and challenging for libraries to
subscribe to all, or even most of the online academic journals (Warren, 2003). There was
thus a “scholarly communication crisis” owing to these high serial subscription costs and
database licences, which limited access to research outputs for university students
and academics (English, 2003). This all prompted academic researchers and university
and research centre administrators to come up with alternative forms of scholarly
communication (Daly and Organ, 2009). To address all the above conditions,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced a research project titled
DSpace “to build a stable and sustainable long-term digital storage repository that
provides an opportunity to explore issues surrounding access control, rights
management, versioning, retrieval, community feedback, and flexible publishing
capabilities” (DSpace Project, 2000). MIT libraries and HP Labs released the DSpace
system worldwide on 4 November 2002 (Warren, 2003).
In a similar response, in June 1994, Stevan Harnad, a cognitive scientist at the
University of Southampton in the UK, wrote his “subversive proposal for electronic
publishing” and posted a message on a mailing list calling fellow researchers to make
their papers freely available on the internet. He stated: “In the online age, scientists can
make their research freely available to all allowing them to better build on one
another’s work in that collaborative enterprise called learned inquiry.”
In 1999, the Santa Fe Convention was held, the first incarnation of the Open
Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting. The roots of OAI lay in the
development of e-print repositories (or archives), established in order to communicate
the results of ongoing scholarly research prior to peer review and journal publication
(Carpenter, 2003). In 2001, the Budapest Open Access Initiative was taken, where the
term “open access” was coined and the two strategies of Green OA (self-archiving) and
Gold OA (open access publishing) were devised (Poynder, 2010).
The California Digital Library eScholarship repository was developed at the
beginning of 2002 in collaboration with the University of California, representing
another landmark in the development of the institutional repository (IR) and open
access movements (Daly and Organ, 2009).
In 2003, further emphasis was placed by the Berlin Declaration on Open Access
(2003), which stated:
Our mission of disseminating knowledge is only half complete if the information is not made
widely and readily available to society. New possibilities of knowledge dissemination not
only through the classical form but also and increasingly through the open access paradigm
via the internet have to be supported.
Since the launch of the pioneering projects, IRs have sprung up at academic
institutions globally and other similar solutions have been developed. Therefore, the
establishment of an IR has become a commonplace activity within academic libraries
intherecentpast,fuelledbythereadyavailabilityandrelativelysimple
implementation of the number of open source software platforms and operating
systems (Robinson, 2009, p. 133). Today, a growing number of universities are
LR
60,2
126
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
beginning to require the digital deposit of their thesis and dissertation output in their
IRs and at the same time, a growing number of universities as well as research funders
are beginning to mandate that all refereed research must be deposited too (Harnad,
2009). Funders’ deposit mandates seem particularly important because they target
high-quality research output, thus setting an example for scientific communities as
well as academic institutions (Romary and Armbruster, 2010). It is envisaged that by
2020, most of the primary scholarly literature will be open access (Prosser, 2007).
Therefore, the major contributors to the development of open access were the
increasing serial subscription costs, which put economic barriers on access to scholarly
research (including for the host and funding institutions) and the call for greater
transparency of the outputs of publicly funded research. This paper reviews the recent
literature on IRs including the benefits of, and potential obstacles to, setting up an IR,
and discusses librarians’ and authors’ participative roles. Based on the recent trends,
the paper proposes the future of IRs and makes recommendations as a way forward.
2. Definition
IRs have been defined diversely by different authors. The most frequently cited IR
definition is from Lynch (2003), who defined an IR as:
[...] a set of services that a university offers to the members of its community for the
management and dissemination of digital materials created by the institution and its
community members. It is most essentially an organisational commitment to the stewardship
of these digital materials, including long-term preservation where appropriate, as well as
organisation and access or distribution.
This definition valuably formalises the concept of stewardship, service provision and
commitment. Johnson (2002) defines an IR as “A digital archive of the intellectual
product created by the faculty, research staff, and students of an institution and
accessible to end-users both within and outside of the institution with few if any
barriers to access”.
To summarise, essential characteristics of an IR are that it is institutionally defined,
scholarly in scope, cumulative and perpetual and open and interoperable (Crow, 2002).
It is a digital repository maintained by an institution, a tool for collecting, storing and
disseminating scholarly outputs within and without the institution. Owing to its
inherent scholarly nature, an IR is also considered as a benchmark of digital scholarship
(Jain et al., 2009).
IRs form part of knowledge management focusing on one aspect of institutional
knowledge that is scholarly research outputs of its academia. The common sources of
these outputs include journals articles (whether in pre-published or post-published
form), conference papers, books, theses, research reports, case studies, surveys and raw
data itself.
Four types of overarching publication repository can be distinguished: the
subject-based repository, the research repository, the national repository system and
the IR. Subject-based repositories usually have been set up by community members and
are adopted by the wider community. Research repositories are generally sponsored by
research funders in order to capture and share results. National repository systems are
set up to capture scholarly output more generally and not just with a view to preserving a
record of scholarship. IRs contain the various outputs of the institution including
research outputs as important outputs. If the repository captures the whole output, it is
Institutional
repositories
127
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
both a library (holding an institutional collection) and a showcase (because the online
open access display of the collection may connect with alumni of the institution or the
colleagues; Armbruster and Romary, 2010). This paper will focus purely on IRs.
3. Benefits of IR
Based on the literature and author’s own understanding, an IR benefits can be grouped
into three categories: benefits to the institution, benefits to authors and benefits to the
library.
Benefits to the academic institution
An IR can be considered as:
.a means of increasing visibility and prestige; it may be used to support
marketing activities to attract high-quality staff, students and funding;
.a venue for the centralisation, storage and long-term curation of all types of
institutional output, including unpublished literature;
.a supporting tool for learning, teaching and research to attract a global audience;
.an instrument to standardise institutional records; it is possible to compile an
institutional curriculum vitae (CV) and have individual online CVs linked to the
full text of articles;
.a mechanism to keep track of and analyse research performance;
.a way to break down publishers’ costs and permissions barriers, as they can be
useful in housing online access publishing, principally by sharing web storage
and other technical infrastructure;
.an alleviation of the requirement to trust publishers to maintain information in
the long term; with a peer review system in place, the repository could also lend
its academic credibility to new start up journals; and
.a way of maximising availability, accessibility, discoverability and functionality
of scholarly research outputs at no cost to the user ( Johnson, 2002; Pickton and
Barwick, 2006; Lyte et al., 2009).
Benefits to individual authors
An IR can offer the following benefits:
.increased dissemination and impact of scholarship;
.enhanced professional visibility due to broader dissemination and increased use
of publications;
.storage and access to a wide range of material;
.greater security and longer term accessibility of material compared to a personal
web site;
.feedback and commentary. Authors are able to assert priority and receive
commentary on pre-publication “pre-prints”;
.added value services such as hit counts on papers, personalised publication lists,
citation analyses and linked CVs;
.a central archive of a researcher’s work;
LR
60,2
128
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
.improved decision making and knowledge transfer and creation through flow of
information;
.a service to scholarship, to the university and to the research community through
self-archiving;
.a more effective and personalised search and discovery facility, addressing the
problem of information oversight; and
.possibility of large-scale collaborations ( Johnson, 2002; Bankier and Perciali,
2008; White, 2009; Lyte et al., 2009).
Benefits to individual authors
IRs are helping libraries reinvent themselves. They are no longer passive receivers of
information but active disseminators of intellectual output for entire universities.
The benefits to these libraries and universities are great because they are positioning
themselves as major digital publishers in the scholarly world (Walters, 2007). An IR
can be beneficial in the following ways:
.IRs provide libraries with opportunities for increased visibility and institutional
presence. The chance to increase visibility among senior administration and the
on-campus research community and the opportunity to work hand in hand with
academia is an attractive option for academic libraries (Daly and Organ, 2009).
This would definitely improve the stereotype image of libraries.
.By virtue of being subject specialists, librarians are ideal to work more closely
with faculty to promote the repository (Bankier et al., 2009). Thus, IRs offer
librarians opportunities to work hand-in-hand with academia.
.Libraries can benefit by leading the way and providing the skills required, to
develop and run an effective IR. For example, they can lead in copyright checking,
metadata creation, authority control, etc. if not championing the entire project.
Libraries must use every human and technical resource available to lead the
design of a new technical infrastructure for modern scholarly communications
and research. Only then will they become the hub for scholarly communications
and attain a leading position in the world of web-based information dissemination
(Walters, 2007).
Thus, the development of repositories, especially IR, could represent the opportunity
for the library profession to deploy its skills and professionalism in an increasingly
important area. As IRs become more valuable, the status and standing of librarians,
and other information specialists, will become better recognised and appreciated (Read,
2008).
4. Potential obstacles to setting up and successfully developing an IR
Swan (2008) has rightly noted:
The reasons for having a repository are so compelling, the advantages so obvious, the payoff so
potentially large, that no institution seriously intent upon its mission, and upon enhancing its
profile and internal functioning, will want to disadvantage itself badly by not having one
(or more).
Institutional
repositories
129
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
Why, therefore, do some institutions find or imagine serious impediments? In spite of
numerous clear benefits mentioned above, literature and experience have identified
possible obstructions and challenges are discribed as follows.
Cost
The initial financial cost for IR open source software opted for by most institutions is
not high but the ongoing maintenance costs may be significant and may prohibit an IR
project getting beyond the proposal stage (Pickton and Barwick, 2006). Sometimes, the
initial costs are prohibitive, or imagined as such, for a poorly resourced organisation.
Difficulties in generating content
There can be undeniable difficulties in generating content, especially in the beginning.
Often, academics are unwilling or lazy to deposit their research work. It was due to
growing frustration with researchers’ passivity that ePrints pioneer Stephen Harnad
became an ardent advocate for the introduction of self-archiving mandates. Experiences
suggest that an IR will only function to its optimal capacity when a mandate is in place to
populate it. But clearly, researchers can react negatively to any suggestion of
compulsion. Most faculties do not respond to the invitation to “add stuff to the IR”
(Bankier and Perciali, 2008, p. 21; Harnad, 2009). Often low deposit rates are attributed to
a lack of institutional policies and mandatory requirements, in addition to the lack of
motivation and low priority for faculty members and researchers (Chan, 2009). Some
universities and institutes have implemented mandatory research depository systems,
such as Hong Kong and Harvard universities. Major research universities may be ahead
of the curve, but for many others, IRs remain empty (Gardner, 2008). This is the biggest
obstacle in IRs’ successful development. Mandatory self-archiving policies are a good
solution, but wide implementation of such policies is another challenge (Xia, 2009;
Pickton and Barwick, 2006).
Problems in gaining sustainable support and commitment
Often, it is difficult to sustain continuous support and commitment from the
management and academic staff (Pickton and Barwick, 2006). Lynch (2003) has
succinctly described this obstacle: “Stewardship is easy and inexpensive to claim; it is
expensive and difficult to honour, and perhaps, it will prove to be all too easy to later
abdicate”.
Copyright management issues
Sometimes, researchers are apprehensive about infringing publisher copyright and
lack adequate awareness about their own intellectual property rights. Publishers,
seeing IRs as potential obstacles and threats to their business and misinterpreting
them, often have policies at least tending towards obfuscation if not antagonism
towards IRs. Authors may, therefore, be dubious making their pre-published work
(preprints) available online before, or even after it is published by a traditional
publisher (Pickton and Barwick, 2006; Doctor and Ramachandran, 2007; Davis and
Connolly, 2007). Since, scholarly publication through an IR is a paradigm shift from
traditional publishing; management of intellectual property issues must also evolve.
LR
60,2
130
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
Working culture and policy issues
Contributing content to user-generated or “self-service” sites can be perceived as
time-consuming by hard pressed academics. They may be happy to contribute content
but reluctant to do it themselves. This necessitates mediated deposit services (Pickton
and Barwick, 2006). It may take time, constant encouragement and mandated policies for
routine self-archiving to become part of normal academic behaviour. A permanent,
reliable mediated deposit service, perhaps based at the library, may also take time to
establish especially if staffed by existing personnel undertaking this role on top of
normal duties. Additionally, policies developed to monitor quality of submissions
constrain IR success but quality assurance is important to some administrators (Pickton
and Barwick, 2006; Harnad, 2009).
Lack of incentives
In the absence of any specific or financial incentive, academics can feel little motivation
to provide even bibliographic details of their academic work especially when they see
incentives are available at other institutions. The academic argument may run that
“the university’s core mission is to advance research and scholarship. It is secondarily
to archive content and to make research publicly accessible. Faculty behaviour and
incentives are aligned with the core mission rather than the secondary one. Shouldn’t
the repository be too?” (Bankier and Perciali, 2008, p. 22; Davis and Connolly, 2007).
This calls for incentives.
Lack of respectability
Literature also notes that by publishing in IRs, it is sometimes difficult to achieve the
type of recognition that the material merits (Davis and Connolly, 2007; Royster, 2008).
This, however, requires reassurance and clarification regarding the term “publishing”.
In an E-print repository, for example, the intention is clearly to make research findings
available as a supplement to a journal article appearing in a peer reviewed quality
publication.
Time consuming and labour intensive
In-house development of IRs is time consuming, labour intensive and requires
long-term sustained efforts (Robinson, 2009; Chan, 2009). This time-consuming factor
encumbers the success of an independent IR.
IR benefits not marketed and appreciated
Literature notes that IRs benefits are not properly marketed and, therefore, they are not
well appreciated by all academic institutions and academic staff (Chan, 2009).
Technical challenge
There are many technical challenges faced in establishing an IR, the more relevant when
information and communication technology expertise is at a premium or sought from an
already stretched local information technology (IT) department. Issues may range from
adapting open source systems and compatibility of software to formatting documents in
an appropriate long-term format as well as provision of adequate training to authors and
other stakeholders, etc. For some, it is challenging in itself to move from the traditional
print format to electronic, which again calls for investment in training.
Institutional
repositories
131
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
Promotional challenge
Many of the above issues may be caused or exacerbated by a lack of proper
understanding about the roles, purposes and workings of an IR. IRs are comparatively
new to much of the academic world, particularly in developing countries. It is a challenge
to promote the benefits IRs offer whilst allaying stakeholders’ concerns and a relentless
promotional and marketing aspect is crucial to successful IR implementation. It is
specifically important to win support from academia and senior management.
According to Westell (2006), the concept of archiving the scholarly output of the
university and making it available in the context of the institution is one that scholars
and administrators are still coming to terms with. Equally then, the real challenge is not
the technical implementation of the IR but rather the cultural change necessary for it to
become embedded and commonplace in the activities and normal behavioural pattern of
researchers (Chan et al., 2005).
5. Roles and responsibilities in an IR
Responsibilities relating to an IR are assumed by different categories of people in
different institutions. How these roles are embraced and developed will also have a
strong bearing on the success of an IR project.
The general trend is that responsibilities will beundertaken collaboratively by officers
within the library in partnership principally with research and development and IT
sections. Libraries, therefore, have a critical role to play in the developmentof IRs, not least
through sustained advocacy. Librarians need to know all about the IR, its principles,
benefits and operational processes in order to promote it and act as “IR evangelists”
(Ashworth, 2006). Then, in addition to promoting the salience of the IR, librarians can
contribute by removing barriers and simplifying the administrative process for faculty to
deposit their research output (Chan, 2009). Indeed, they can assume the lead role in the
operational management of the IR by liaising with the IT department and acting as
collection administrators and metadata specialists. In fact, the basic principles behind the
current arrangement of repositories are inspired by librarianship techniques. Through
such involvement, librarians well may also assume responsibility to train staff, students
and other stakeholders to use the IR and help them prepare their digital products (Allard
et al., 2005; Walters, 2007; Jain and Bentley, 2008).
Recently, the value of librarians in the Open Access movement has been recognised
by, describing them as the main designers, promoters and maintainers of IRs.
The role of the author should thus ideally become purely one of knowledge supplier,
unimpeded as far as possible by issues of bureaucracy, processing and logistics, unless
the they wish to be involved with them. According to Westell (2006), the concept of
archiving scholarly outputs of a university and making them available in the context of
the institution is one that scholars and administrators are still coming to terms with.
As discussed, the real challenge is not the technical implementation of the IR but rather
the cultural change necessary for it to become embedded in the activities and normal
behavioural pattern of researchers (Chan et al., 2005). Such activities would include
uploading of research output, responding to questions and comments posted by
readers, updating materials, especially pre-print articles and work in progress,
ensuring high quality and standards of materials, and negotiating copyright issues
with publishers ( Jain and Bentley, 2008).
LR
60,2
132
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
6. Growth of IRs
As a consequence, of the challenges listed above, hitherto the growth of IRs has been
concentrated largely in institutions in the developed world. This is shown in Figure 1.
In 27 September 2009, the total number of repositories was 1,471 and to date the
number has increased to 1,683: an addition of 212 IRs. But Figure 1 reinforces the point
that IRs are overwhelmingly concentrated thus far in developed Western countries.
This is holding true in current trends. For example, in September 2009, statistics
showed that Europe had 706 repositories and scored 48 per cent of the total worldwide;
now the number of repositories has increased to 822, representing 49 per cent of the
total. In September, North America had 413 (28 per cent) and now the number has
increased to 433 (26 per cent). Asia had 174 (12 per cent) while to date the number has
reached 214 (13 per cent). South America had 67 (5 per cent) and now 83 (5 per cent).
Australasia had 77 (5 per cent) and now it has 78 repositories (5 per cent). Africa had 26
(2 per cent) and now the number is 40, still representing (2 per cent) of the total 1,683.
The Caribbean has added two IRs and Central America, a single IR. It is evident from
the figure that less developed countries are still lagging behind so a greater emphasis
on the benefits of an IR, over the obstacles, needs to be given. A harder and stronger
advocacy role is required by academic libraries in these countries; and even the
developed IRs should assume a mentoring role to guide the developing IRs.
This slow but stable trend of overall growth is shown in Figure 2. It is clear that IR
growth has been steady since mid-2006 and, in view of implementation and resource
challenges, is likely to continue the same way.
7. New innovations in IRs
As existing, well-established IRs begin to evolve, it would be possible to chart a
potential future course for IRs and consider the different roles they may begin to play
and the influence they may have. This section reviews some examples of new
innovations in IRs.
Harvard University’s DASH Project
On 1 September 2009, Harvard University library launched Digital Access to
Scholarship at Harvard (DASH), a University-wide, open-access repository joined by
Figure 1.
Proportion of repositories
by continent – worldwide
Europe (822 = 49%)
North America (433 = 26%)
South America (88 = 5%)
Asia (214 = 13%)
Australasia (78 = 5%)
Africa (40 = 2%)
Caribbean (7 = 0%)
Central America (6 = 0%)
Total = 1,683 repositories
Source: OpenDOAR (2010)
Institutional
repositories
133
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
over 350 members of the Harvard research community. According to Robert Darnton,
Carl H. Pforzheimer, University Professor and Director of the University Library:
DASH is meant to promote openness in general. It will make the current scholarship of
Harvard’s faculty freely available everywhere in the world, just as the digitisation of the
books in Harvard’s library will make learning accumulated since 1638 accessible worldwide.
Taken together, these and other projects represent a commitment by Harvard to share its
intellectual wealth (Harvard University Library, 2009).
University of Southampton, England
The University established an educationally focussed repository called EdShare, using
e-Prints Soton, which makes it visible and popular. This share was motivated in
functionality and ease of use by Web 2.0 sites such as YouTube and Slideshare.
Important design principles of this share included ease of use, minimal metadata,
permanent URLs and open access. With EdShare, the rate of resource upload has been
four times higher than for the national learning and teaching repository JORUM, and
the rate of downloads is six times higher. The project has had significant benefits for
the University of Southampton in terms of networking and attracting communities to
resources that are being shared across academic disciplines. The project has developed
a new level of collaboration between the key academic services and the educational
community. It has also supported staff in sharing their resources through appropriate
licences and proper understanding in re-using the resources of others (Morris, 2009).
Hong Kong Institute of Education
At the Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd), the library followed an approach to
the development of the IR by aligning it with the research strategies of the Institute.
Initially, the Institute Library had developed an IR focusing on the digitisation and
organisation of a range of “in-house” publications; consequently, it embarked on the
rebuilding of its IR to focus primarily on staff research. In 2009, the IR was re-launched
named, “The HKIEd Research Repository” as an online archive of all major scholarly
and research publications produced by staff members of the Institute from the
foundation of HKIEd in 1994 to the present day. The Repository supports HKIEd
Figure 2.
Growth of the OpenDOAR
database – worldwide
2,000
1,000
0
Cumulative number of repositories
2005 2006 2007
Date added
Source: OpenDOAR (2010)
2008 2009 2010
LR
60,2
134
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
strategies for building research capacity by providing a single point of access to staff
publications. To achieve this goal, the repository has set eight objectives: improved
visibility of HKIEd research, demonstrating the depth of its research efforts to
stakeholders, providing a convenient self-archiving mechanism, providing a means to
search collective publications of the faculty, etc. (Robinson, 2009).
In 2008, four Hong Kong universities were ranked among the world’s top 150
universities in various research performance indicators, such as citations per faculty.
Hong Kong Research Grants Council supports the continuous development of IRs
(Chan, 2009).
When a close relationship withthe research and development section of an institution is
in place, an IR can also begin to function as an internal research performance indicator.
The potential for an IR to fulfil concurrent roles is an enticing one for some institutions.
New Zealand
New Zealand and Australia have been at the forefront of IR development. New Zealand
launched an IR at the University of Otago on the 17 November 2005 and by May 2007,
there were eight IRs. In the beginning of 2009, New Zealand has started an
Open Access Repositories in New Zealand project to connect all the New Zealand’s
digital research repositories meeting standards for interoperability and access.
The project aims to develop capability and confidence by providing tertiary education
institutes with a range of repository implementation options from which to select.
Principles underpinning the project include openness of systems/standards, flexibility,
sustainability and inclusiveness. The Library Consortium of NZ aims to use and
develop the best enabling technologies in collaboration, which will enhance the
innovative delivery of library and information resources and services to the NZ tertiary
learning and research community. The Australasian Digital Theses Program aims to
establish a database of digital copies of theses produced by postgraduate students at
seven New Zealand and Australian universities (New Zealand Repositories, 2009).
University of California
California University uses eScholarship, which is a service of the Publishing Group of
the California Digital Library launched in October 2009. Using eScholarship, the
following original scholarly works can be published on a dynamic research platform
available to scholars worldwide: journals, books, working papers, conference
proceedings and seminar/paper series. It also provides deposit and dissemination
services for post-prints, or previously published articles. Today, the California Digital
Library has 32,881 publications in eScholarship, 283 eScholarship research units and
283 eScholarship journals. They have also launched post-prints service (eScholarship:
University of California, 2010). The University of California uses eScholarship as an
alternative publishing platform. Publishing with eScholarship is based on the four main
beliefs: keep your copyright, reach more readers, publish when you want to and protect
your work’s future. According to Nathan MacBrien, publications director, “eScholarship
is central to our publishing mission, offering a level of access, discoverability, and online
permanence that traditional publishers cannot match” (Proulx, 2009).
MIT, Boston
To make scholarly articles openly available, the Faculty of MIT stated, “The Faculty of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology is committed to disseminating the fruits of its
Institutional
repositories
135
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
research and scholarship as widely as possible”. MIT is using DSpace repository to house
those articles and to make them openly available to the world. To implement the MIT OA
Mandate, MIT is using Simple Web Service Offering Repository Deposit (SWORD) and
Scholarly Works Application Profile (SWAP). MIT libraries’ staff focused on two
challenges: streamlining the manual upload process for their researchers and outreach
librarians and lowering the barriers to contribution by members of the publishing
community supportive of MIT’s policy. The first challenge was addressed by leveraging
the flexibility of Manakin and functionality available through DSpace configurable
submission. To deal with the second challenge, the MIT libraries investigated SWORD
and SWAP to facilitate external contributions by publishers. SWORD and SWAP are used
to improve collaboration with publishers to house large amounts of content into a
repository (Morris, 2010). The SWORD protocol allows the IR to receive newly published
articles from any of BioMed Central’s 200 þjournals 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 (BioMed Central, 2010).
UK IR
UK has developed an innovative tool to showcase research output through advanced
discovery and retrieval facilities. An IR or a federated search creates a long list of
cumulative articles, while information items stored in a repository are only useful if
they can meet a user’s specific needs. An item can be successfully found if it has been
indexed and classified using quality metadata. To solve this problem, UK IR has
developed an innovative conceptual search facility that uses subject-specific metadata
where they exist at artefact level in UK IR to identify key documents. It also uses a
keyword to text-mine artefacts that its neural network algorithms think might be
conceptually related. The project has successfully carried out specific development
paths – namely, evolving from simple metadata search, to conceptual search and
clustering full conceptual indexing of documents; text mining of full-text documents;
automatic subject classification, clustering of results and browsing through search
results. This UK IR Search project has created a free search tool that responds to
challenges faced by IR users. It has broken new ground in visualising how a new
paradigm to search and discovery within the academic sector can be achieved beyond
the simple search box (Lyte et al., 2009).
8. The future of IRs
With the various IR initiatives, successes and failures come two schools of thought.
One school believes IRs can be used to effectively showcase the scholarly output of an
institution and they have functioned unambiguously to broadcast the research results
of their institutions and staff (Xia, 2009). The other school already lacks trust in IRs,
believing only a few have really developed into sizeable scholarly databases sufficient
to demonstrate to their administrators the rewards of institutional investment
(Xia, 2009). As much as institutions want to create their identity in the global village
through online intellectual scholarly publications using an IR, they also want to control
and maintain ownership over their online presence, and they want it to be visually
appealing (Bankier and Perciali, 2008). Whilst these seem moderate ambitions, it is not
the case for many existing IRs. Perhaps, discouraged by author uptake, some
universities have given up on the IRs, or they use them mostly to store their library’s
LR
60,2
136
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
digitised archives, or simply they become resigned to the “drip drip” speed of author
self-archiving. Similar observations are noted by Romary and Armbruster (2010),
having that a robust repository infrastructure is essential to academic work. Yet, current
institutional solutions, even when networked in a country or across Europe, have largely
failed to deliver.
Despite negativity towards IRs, it remains clear that organisations are more and
more realising both importance and added value benefits of the central concept behind
IRs (MIRE, 2009).
Basefsky (2009) suggests that IRs should serve as full-fledged electronic libraries
and thereby serve the purpose of collecting, disseminating, analysing and exchanging
useful digital information for academic purposes. He further raises the questions:
should not the IR be coupled with the full range of academic and research support
services that new technologies permit? In an era of social networking, why is the
university not moving quickly to develop a social academic research service that can
enhance the role of libraries, librarians and IT specialists?
But ironically, some developments may, however, begin to erode the “institutional”
scope of IRs. Recently, the university has a unique opportunity to reinvent and to
reinvigorate the model of the IR (Bankier and Perciali, 2008). Therefore, the next wave of
IRs must be re-imagined around specific services that have value to faculty and can be
marketed to them – and supported by an administrative mandate (Albanese, 2009).
A new path for a more robust infrastructure and larger repositories is being explored to
create superior services that support the academic community. A future organisation of
publication repositories is advocated that is based upon macroscopic academic settings
providing a critical mass of interest as well as organisational coherence. These settings
may be geographical (a coherent national scheme), institutional (a large research
organisation or a consortium thereof) or thematic (a specific research field organising
itself in the domain of publication repositories) (Romary and Armbruster, 2010).
9. Conclusion and recommendation
The purpose of this paper was to review the latest trends in IRs, discuss the future of
IRs and make some recommendations that might be especially relevant for developing
and low use repositories. From the ongoing debate, it is apparent that with the
publication of research outputs becoming such an important part of academic life – the
very bread and butter of universities and research institutions – repository
involvement in the publication process is a strategic desirability, if not an imperative
(Daly and Organ, 2009). IRs are also increasingly becoming an avenue for alternative
publishing models. However, in developing countries, IRs are still in a developmental
stage. It is, therefore, necessary for the host institutions of developed IRs to strategise
what they wish to gain from their IR and where they see them in five or so years such
that they can be mentors to developing IRs. Developing countries still have time to
incorporate new IR strategies, and should do so, as IR systems have advantages clearly
shown in this paper.
In order to make IR more successful and lasting, the following are recommended:
.a comprehensive promotion and publicity of the benefits of IR to the faculty and
all other stakeholders;
.provision of clear policies on ownership, IR contents, quality standards,
copyright issues, etc.;
Institutional
repositories
137
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
.adoption of a strict institutional implementation policy to mandatory deposit of
all staff research outputs and students’ dissertation and thesis;
.consider IRs as ongoing projects not once done and dust;
.a clear articulation of vision, strategy and tactics whether it is has a
institution-centred, researcher-centred or a general public-entered vision;
.provision of a full range of academic and research support services including
e-mail e-print request, closed access deposit through IRs to serve academia and
researchers;
.sustainable support from the senior management and academia;
.adequate provision of resources (finance, space, human and technology); and
.introduction of incentives to encourage academia to publish through IRs.
References
Allard, S., Mack, T.R. and Feltner-Reicher, M. (2005), “The librarian’s role in institutional
repositories: a content analysis of the literature”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 325-36.
Armbruster, C. and Romary, L. (2010), “Comparing repository types – challenges and barriers for
subject-based repositories, research repositories, national repository systems and
institutional repositories in serving scholarly communication”, available at: http://arxiv.
org/abs/1005.0839 (accessed 7 June 2010).
Ashworth, S. (2006), “Role of librarians in the development of institutional repositories”,
available at: www.pfsl.poznan.pl/oa/ppt/2.ppt (accessed 30 January 2010).
Bankier, J.-G. and Perciali, I. (2008), “The institutional repository rediscovered: what can a
university do for open access publishing?”, Serials Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 21-6.
Bankier, J.-G., Foster, C. and Wiley, G. (2009), “Institutional repositories strategies for the present
and future”, The Serials Librarian, Vol. 56, pp. 109-15.
Basefsky, S. (2009), “The end of institutional repositories and the beginning of social academic
research service: an enhanced role for libraries”, available at: www.llrx.com/node/2177/
print (accessed 31 January 2010).
Berlin Declaration on OpenAccess (2003), “Berlin declaration on open access to knowledge in the
sciences and humanities”, available at: www.oa.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/signatories.html
(accessed 6 January 2010).
BioMed Central (2010), “BioMed Central partners with Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Libraries to deposit open access articles automatically using SWORD protocol”, available
at: www.biomedcentral.com/info/presscenter/pressreleases?pr¼20100429 (accessed 5 June
2010).
Carpenter, L. (2003), “History and development of OAI-PMH”, available at: www.oaforum.org/
tutorial/english/page2.htm (accessed 5 June 2010).
Chan, D.L.H. (2009), “An integrative view of the institutional repositories in Hong Kong:
strategies and challenges”, Serial Review, Vol. 35, pp. 119-24.
Chan, D.L.H., Kwok, C.S.Y. and Yip, S.K.F. (2005), “Changing roles of reference librarians: the
case of the HKUST institutional repository”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 268-82.
Crow, R. (2002), “The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper”, available at:
http://works.bepress.com/ir_research/7/ (accessed 6 February 2010).
LR
60,2
138
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
Daly, R. and Organ, M. (2009), “Research online: digital commons as a publishing platform at the
University of Wollongong, Australia”, Serials Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 149-53.
Davis, P.M. and Connolly, M.J.L. (2007), “Institutional repositories: evaluating the reasons for
non-use of Cornell University’s installation of DSpace”, D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 13 Nos 3/4,
available at: www.dlib.org/dlib/march07/davis/03davis.html (accessed 6 February 2010).
Doctor, G. and Ramachandran, S. (2007), “Enabling knowledge sharing with an institutional
repository”, Seventh IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies,
Niigata, pp. 432-3.
DSpace Project (2000), MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol. XII No. 4, available at: http://dspace.org/
news/articles/dspace-project.html
English, R. (2003), “Scholarly communication and the academy: the importance of the ACRL
initiative”, Portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 3, pp. 337-40.
eScholarship: University of California (2010), “eScholarship provides open access, scholarly
publishing services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic research platform
to scholars worldwide”, available at: http://escholarship.org/ (accessed 30 January 2010).
Gardner, J. (2008), “Open access and institutional repositories: issues in today’s digital libraries”,
available at: www.archive.org/details/OpenAccessAndInstitutionalRepositoriesIssues
InTodaysDigitalLibraries (accessed 31 January 2010).
Harnad, S. (2009), “Integrating universities’ thesis and research deposit mandates”, paper
presented at 12th International Symposium on Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 10-13
June, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, available at: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
18032/1/ETDpaper.pdf (accessed 5 June 2010).
Harvard University Library (2009), “Harvard’s DASH for open access”, available at: http://hul.
harvard.edu/news/2009_0901.html (accessed 31 January 2010).
Jain, P. and Bentley, G. (2008), “Institutional repositories as a benchmark for digital scholarship”,
Botswana Library Association 1st National Conference, 26-28 June, University of
Botswana Library Auditorium, Gaborone, pp. 116-30.
Jain, P., Bentley, G. and Oladiran, M.T. (2009), “The role of institutional repository in digital
scholarly communications”, paper presented at African Digital Scholarship and Curation
Conference, 12-14 May, CSIR Conference Centre, Pretoria.
Johnson, R.K. (2002), “Institutional repositories: partnering with faculty to enhance scholarly
communication”, D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 8 No. 11, available at: www.dlib.org/dlib/november02/
johnson/11johnson.html (accessed 18 January 2010).
Lynch, C.A. (2003), “Institutional repositories: essential infrastructure for scholarship in the
digital age”, ARL: A Bimonthly Report, 226, available at: www.arl.org/resources/pubs/br/
br226/br226ir.shtml (accessed 16 January 2010).
Lyte, V., Jones, S., Ananiadou, S. and Kerr, L. (2009), “UK institutional repository search:
innovation and discovery”, available at: www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue61/lyte-et-al/ (accessed
12 June 2010).
MIRE (2009), “The institutional repository in 2010 ...and beyond”, available at: http://atmire.com/
presentations/OnlineInformation2009/Repositories-in-2010.pdf (accessed 5 June 2010).
Morris, C.M. (2010), Using SWORD and SWAP to implement the MIT OA Mandate: DuraSpace
Blog, available at: http://expertvoices.nsdl.org/duraspace/2010/01/26/using-sword-
and-swap-to-implement-the-mit-oa-mandate/ (accessed 5 June 2010).
Morris, D. (2009), “EdSpace: an educationally focussed repository for the University of
Southampton”, available at: www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/.../edspacefinalreport.doc
(accessed 17 January 2010).
Institutional
repositories
139
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
New Zealand Repositories (2009), available at: www.oarinz.ac.nz/oarinzwiki/index.php?n¼OARi
NZ.NewZealandRepositories (accessed 6 January 2010).
OpenDOAR (2010), “The directory of open access repositories”, available at: www.opendoar.org/
(accessed 14 June 2010).
Pickton, M. and Barwick, J. (2006), “A librarian’s guide to institutional repositories”,
Loughborough University, Loughborough, available at: http://magpie.lboro.ac.uk/dspace/
handle/2134/1122 (accessed 16 January 2010).
Poynder, R. (2010), “Interview with Stevan Harnad: a prophet whose time has come”, Information
Today, Vol. 27 No. 2, available at: www.infotoday.com/it/feb10/Poynder.shtml (accessed
30 May 2010).
Prosser, D. (2007), The role of thelibrary 2020: LIBER (Association of European Research Libraries)
Development Plan 2007-2010, available at: www.grl2020.net/uploads/Presentations/
GRL2020%20David%20Prosser.pdf (accessed 6 June 2010).
Proulx, E. (2009), “New look enhanced services for eScholarship”, available at: www.university
ofcalifornia.edu/news/article/22047 (accessed 6 January 2010).
Read, M. (2008), “Libraries and repositories”, New Review of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 14
Nos 1/2, pp. 71-8.
Robinson, M. (2009), “Promoting the visibility of educational research through an institutional
repository”, Serials Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 133-7.
Romary, L. and Armbruster, C. (2010), “Beyond institutional repositories”, International Journal
of Digital Library Systems, Vol. 1, pp. 44-61.
Royster, P. (2008), “Publishing original content in an institutional repository”, Serials Review,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 27-30.
Salo In Albanese, A.R. (2009), “Institutional repositories: thinking beyond the box”, available at:
www.libraryjournal.com/index.asp?layout¼articlePrint&articleID¼CA6639327 (accessed
30 January 2010).
Swan, A. (2008), “The business of digital repositories”, available at: www.keyperspectives.co.uk/
openaccessarchive/reports/The_business_of_digital_repositories.pdf (accessed 30 May
2010).
Walters, T.O. (2007), “Reinventing the library-how repositories are causing librarians to rethink
their professional roles”, Portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 213-25,
available at: http://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/14421
Warren, B. (2003), “Current challenges and choices in scientific publication”, Baylor University
Medical Centre Proceedings, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 401-4, available at: www.pubmedcentral.nih.
gov/picrender.fcgi?artid¼1214560&blobtype¼pdf (accessed 17 January 2010).
Westell, M. (2006), “Institutional repositories: proposed indicators of success”, Library Hi Tech,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 211-26.
White, W. (2009), “Institutional repositories: contributing to institutional knowledge
management and the global research commons”, paper presented at 4th International
Open Repositories Conference, 18-21 May, Atlanta, GA, available at: http://eprints.soton.
ac.uk/48552/ (accessed 6 January 2010).
Xia, J. (2009), “Library publishing as a new model of scholarly communication”, Journal of
Scholarly Publishing, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 370-83.
LR
60,2
140
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
Further reading
Bailey, C.W. Jr (2008), “Institutional repositories, tout de suite”, available at: www.digital-
scholarship.org/ts/irtoutsuite.pdf (accessed 31 January 2010).
Bailey, R. and Bailey, E. (2006), “Providence College’s digital institutional repository the digital
common”, available at: http://digitalcommons.providence.edu (accessed 30 January 2010).
California Digital Library (2009), available at: www.cdlib.org/glance/overview.html (accessed
6 January 2010).
Carr, L. and Brody, T. (2007), “Size isn’t everything: sustainable repositories evidenced by
sustainable deposit profiles”, D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 13 Nos 7/8, available at: http://eprints.
ecs.soton.ac.uk/13872/ (accessed 5 June 2010).
Center for Research Libraries (2008), “Trustworthy repositories audit and certification (TRAC):
criteria and checklist”, Center for Research Libraries, Chicago, IL, available at: www.crl.
edu/PDF/trac.pdf (accessed 30 January 2010).
Directory of Open Access Journals (2009), available at: www.doaj.org/ (accessed 4 April 2010).
ePrints (2010), “Open access and institutional repositories with ePrints”, available at: www.
eprints.org/ (accessed 6 June 2010).
Harnad, S. and McGovern, N. (2009), “Institutional repository success is dependent upon
mandates”, Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 27-31.
Jones, R., Andrew, T. and MacColl, J. (2006), “The institutional repository”, Chandos, Oxford,
available at: www.digital-scholarship.org/ts/irtoutsuite.pdf (accessed 5 June 2010).
Library Spring (2009), “Institutional repositories: contributing to institutional knowledge
management and the global research commons”, Wendy White, University of
Southampton, available at: http://libraryspring.blogspot.com/2009/05/or-09-institutional-
repositories.html (accessed 16 January 2010).
Morris, C.M. (2010), Fedora-based University of Wisconsin Library Prototype for all UW digital
collections: DuraSpace Blog, available at: http://expertvoices.nsdl.org/duraspace/2010/01/
21/fedora-based-university-of-wisconsin-library-prototype-for-all-uw-digital-collections/
(accessed 7 June 2010).
Poynder, R. (2010), “Institutional repositories and small institutions”, available at: http://
undergraduatesciencelibrarian.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/institutional-repositories-
and-small-institutions/ (accessed 30 May 2010).
SPARC EUROPE (2009), “The DOAJ received SPARC Europe Award for outstanding
achievements in scholarly communications”, available at: www.lub.lu.se/index.php?
id¼267&L¼1&nId¼154 (accessed 17 January 2010).
SPARCE Europe (2010), “Advocating change in scholarly communications for the benefit of
researchers and society”, available at: www.sparceurope.org/ (accessed 5 June 2010).
Stuart, B. (2009), “The end of institutional repositories and the beginning of social academic
research service: an enhanced role for libraries”, available at: www.llrx.com/node/2177/
print (accessed 17 January 2010).
UC Berkeley (2010), “Faculty conference on scholarly publications”, available at: www.lib.
berkeley.edu/scholarlypublishing/repositories.html (accessed 5 June 2010).
Corresponding author
Priti Jain can be contacted at: jainp@mopipi.ub.bw
Institutional
repositories
141
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
This article has been cited by:
1. Stephen Pinfield. 2015. Making Open Access work. Online Information Review 39:5, 604-636. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
2. Fatemeh Lagzian, A. Abrizah, Mee-Chin Wee. 2015. Measuring the gap between perceived importance
and actual performance of institutional repositories. Library & Information Science Research . [CrossRef]
3. Fatemeh Lagzian, A Abrizah, Mee Chin Wee. 2015. Critical success factors for institutional repositories
implementation. The Electronic Library 33:2, 196-209. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Fatih Oguz, Shimelis Assefa. 2014. Faculty members’ perceptions towards institutional repository at a
medium-sized university. Library Review 63:3, 189-202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Priti Jain. 2013. Knowledge Management in Academic Libraries and Information Centres: A Case of
University Libraries. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 12, 1350034. [CrossRef]
6. Lauren Fralinger, Jonathan Bull. 2013. Measuring the international usage of US institutional repositories.
OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives 29:3, 134-150. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
7. Michael C. CalverRAM the PI-BETA, C3PO - what the H-STAR happened to my promotion
application? Or: The pros and cons of bibliometric evaluations of researchers 106-121. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA At 01:11 03 January 2016 (PT)
