Assessment of Self-Archiving in Institutional Repositories: Depositorship and Full-Text Availability

Xia, Jingfeng; Sun, Li

doi:10.1080/00987913.2007.10765087

Cited by 33 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They used Open Archive Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) extracts to determine the dates and frequency of deposit to determine whether objects were deposited in large batches (suggesting work by the IR's staff) or whether they were deposited in small numbers continually. Only three of the twenty repositories they presented in their results demonstrated what they, referencing Xia and Sun (2007), considered patterns for sustainable success. However, those with successful deposit patterns were not contacted for any kind of follow-up to determine what local practices or factors might have contributed to these deposits.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 91%

Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories

Tillman

2017

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONThe literature of institutional repositories generally indicates that faculty do not self-deposit, but there is a gap in the research of reported self-deposit numbers that might indicate how widespread and common this is. METHODS This study was conducted using a survey instrument that requested information about whether a repository allowed self-deposit and what its rates of self-deposit were, if known. The instrument contained additional questions intended to gather a broader context of repositories to be examined for any correlations with higher rates of self-deposit. It also included questions about the kinds of labor required to populate an IR as well as satisfaction with the rates of self-deposit. RESULTS Of 82 respondents, 80 were deemed to fall within the study's parameters. Of these, 55 respondents' institutions allowed self-deposit, and 10 reported rates of self-deposit of more than 20 items per month. More than half the total respondents reported using at least three methods other than relying on self-deposit to add content to their repository. Respondents are generally unsatisfied with their deposit profiles, including one at a school reporting the highest rate of self-deposit. DISCUSSION From the responses, no profile could be formed of respondents reporting high rates of self-deposit that did not entirely overlap with many others reporting little or no self-deposit. However, the survey identifies factors without which high rates are unlikely. CONCLUSION The results of this survey may be most useful as a factor in administrative prioritizations and expectations regarding institutional repositories as sites of scholarly self-deposit. Received: 06/13/2017 Accepted: 09/25/2017 Correspondence: Ruth Kitchin Tillman, 126 Paterno Library, University Park, PA 16802, rkt6@psu.edu RESEARCHJournal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE1. This study supports the general understanding in the community of people who maintain IRs that, despite outreach, few faculty self-deposit anywhere.2. When attempting future projects that require broad faculty buy-in, librarians and administrators should ask themselves whether they are repeating assumptions made about IR buy-in.3. The levels of respondent satisfaction with repository self-deposit and number of additional methods being used to fill repositories present opportunities for research about job satisfaction, emotional well-being, and retention in librarians tasked with filling repositories. INTRODUCTIONFourteen years since Clifford Lynch's (2003) assertion that institutional repositories (IRs) were essential infrastructure for 21st-century scholarship, where are we? Has the institutional repository transformed how faculty produce scholarship? Are faculty eagerly depositing their work, or are they at least interested once the repository has been "seeded" with enough articles to attract their attention? Will the next pilot project or the next outreach session turn things around? Can we catch them as graduate students and hol...

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 91%

Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories

Tillman

2017

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the early days of institutional repositories, libraries have struggled to fill them with faculty-authored content (Covey, 2011;Davis & Connolly, 2007;Foster & Gibbons, 2005;Harnad, 2006;Jantz & Wilson, 2008;McDowell, 2007;Salo, 2008;Xia & Sun, 2007;Yang & Li, 2015). This lack of participation by researchers has persisted despite 1 Participation rates are moving targets and are therefore difficult to estimate.…”

Section: Institutional Repositoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional Repositories and Academic Social Networks: Competition or Complement? A Study of Open Access Policy Compliance vs. ResearchGate Participation

Lovett

Rathemacher

Boukari

et al. 2017

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONThe popularity of academic social networks like ResearchGate and Academia.edu indicates that scholars want to share their work, yet for universities with open access (OA) policies, these sites may be competing with institutional repositories (IRs) for content. This article seeks to reveal researcher practices, attitudes, and motivations around uploading their work to ResearchGate and complying with an institutional OA Policy through a study of faculty at the University of Rhode Island (URI). METHODS We conducted a population study to examine the participation by 558 full-time URI faculty members in the OA Policy and ResearchGate followed by a survey of 728 full-time URI faculty members about their participation in the two services. DISCUSSION The majority of URI faculty do not participate in the OA Policy or use ResearchGate. Authors' primary motivations for participation are sharing their work more broadly and increasing its visibility and impact. Faculty who participate in ResearchGate are more likely to participate in the OA Policy, and vice versa. The fact that the OA Policy targets the author manuscript and not the final published article constitutes a significant barrier to participation. CONCLUSION Librarians should not view academic social networks as a threat to open access. Authors' strong preference for sharing the final, published version of their articles provides support for calls to hasten the transition to a Gold OA publishing system. Misunderstandings about the OA Policy and copyright indicate a need for librarians to conduct greater education and outreach to authors about options for legally sharing articles. Received: 01/26/2017 Accepted: 06/20/2017 Correspondence: Andrée Rathemacher, 269 Library, University Libraries, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, USA, andree@uri.edu 2. Throughout the survey, faculty reported a strong aversion to sharing the author manuscript version of their articles. This was the most significant barrier to participating in the OA Policy. This finding, if generalizable, should inform current discussions among OA advocates about the respective roles going forward of Green OA achieved through depositing author manuscripts in institutional repositories and Gold OA achieved at the point of publication. RESEARCH3. Our survey revealed a range of misunderstandings about the IR, OA policies, and copyright. For example, many respondents believe that the legality of posting one's articles in both the IR and ResearchGate depends on publisher policy and the version of the article posted. In fact, permissions-based OA policies make it legal to post author manuscripts in the IR regardless of publisher policies, and many subscriptionaccess journals prohibit depositing any version of an article to commercial sites like ResearchGate. These misunderstandings indicate a need for librarians to conduct greater education and outreach to faculty around their options for legally sharing published articles. INTRODUCTIONFrom electronic journals and repositories to soci...

show abstract

“…10 Faculty still stay away from the self-archiving activities and do not show increasing interest in the efforts in the near future. 11 Evidently, they have different attitudes toward sharing research results in subject-oriented online portals where people have similar research interests than in institutional online databases where people are connected by employment affiliation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Self-Archiving in Institutional Repositories: Depositorship and Full-Text Availability

Cited by 33 publications

References 12 publications

Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories

Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories

Institutional Repositories and Academic Social Networks: Competition or Complement? A Study of Open Access Policy Compliance vs. ResearchGate Participation

A Comparison of Subject and Institutional Repositories in Self-archiving Practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About