Conclusion: Assessment of research impact using traditional citation analysis alone is not a sufficient tool for assessing the impact of research findings, and it is not predictive of subsequent clinical applications resulting in meaningful health outcomes. The Becker Model can be used by both researchers and librarians to document research impact to supplement citation analysis.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to examine current institutional repository (IR) content in order to assess the growth and breadth of content as it reflects faculty participation, and to identify successful strategies for increasing that participation. Previous studies have shown that faculty-initiated submissions to IRs, no matter the platform, are uncommon. Repository managers employ a variety of methods to solicit and facilitate faculty participation, including a variety of print marketing tools, presentations, and one-on-one consultations. METHODS This mixed method study examined faculty content in IRs through both a quantitative analysis of repository content and growth rate and a qualitative survey of repository administrators. Repositories using the Digital Commons repository platform, hosted by Berkeley Electronic Press, were examined in the fall and winter of 2013-2014 to assess the disciplinary scope of faculty content (n=107) and to measure the growth rate of IR content (n=203). Repository administrators at 205 institutions were surveyed to investigate what methods they used to facilitate faculty participation and their perceptions about the effectiveness of these methods. RESULTS Mean and median growth rates of IRs have increased since measured in 2007, with variance depending upon size and type of academic institution and age of the IR. Disciplinary content in IRs is unevenly distributed, with the Sciences predominantly represented. IR administrators remain actively involved in the submission process and in the promotion of their IRs. Personal contact with individuals or groups of faculty is the most used and successful interaction method. CONCLUSION Though IR growth rate has increased, the growth is not consistent across all IRs and does not yet pose a challenge to traditional models of scholarly publication. The rising amount of faculty content in IRs indicates faculty are increasingly willing to participate in the IR movement. However, faculty involvement may be more passive than active.

Recent advancements in translational medicine have created an urgent need for solutions that support information dissemination and facilitate a fluid exchange of data from the research laboratory to the clinical environment and on to the broader community. Medical libraries can help meet this need by incorporating emerging Web-based technologies in support of educational, research, and patient care objectives. Web 2.0 resources facilitate creativity, collaboration, and sharing among users. Integration of Web 2.0 resources allows scientists, students, and medical professionals to efficiently organize and manage the information and resources that are critical in today's quickly changing biomedical research environment.

No abstract

Access to information resources is a traditional library service. Public libraries were the first to provide unfettered access to print information resources to a general population. It is not a stretch to recognize those institutions as the earliest providers of open access (OA). Now the term open access is generally defined as the free and immediate online availability of research and scholarship, adapting to the widespread change in delivery format from print to digital. OA as a library service—most commonly in support of the scholarly communication process—has become a priority for most academic libraries. Academic libraries and librarians are increasingly engaged in both providing and promoting OA, primarily through institutional repository (IR) services with roles as creators, disseminators, publishers, and preservers of scholarly content.