2012
DOI: 10.7710/2162-3309.1032
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Does Tenure Matter? Factors Influencing Faculty Contributions to Institutional Repositories

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Institutional repositories (IRs) provide colleges and universities a way to ensure stability of access to and dissemination of digital scholarly communications. Yet, many institutions report that faculty willingness to contribute to IRs is often limited. This study investigates faculty attitudes about IR contributions by tenure status and category of material. METHODS Two focus group interviews were conducted in the spring of 2009 among English department faculty at a large Midwestern university. … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
15
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
4
15
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Shearer (2003) also noted that "in most cases, IRs have no barriers to their content or very low-barrier access (such as registration requirements)" (p. 92) Chan (2004) noted that the primary role of IRs was to facilitate OA to the traditional scholarship in institutions. To sum this up, Casey (2012) re-affirmed the purpose of IRs as partly meant to serve as OA repositories of the intellectual output of the faculty, besides showcasing the tangible results of the institution globally. However, Prost and Schopfel (2014) in their survey of 25 IRs selected from the Directory of Open Access Repositories established that a number of items in these repositories were either metadata without full-text, metadata with full-text only for authorized users, and items that were under embargo or that were restricted to on-campus access.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Shearer (2003) also noted that "in most cases, IRs have no barriers to their content or very low-barrier access (such as registration requirements)" (p. 92) Chan (2004) noted that the primary role of IRs was to facilitate OA to the traditional scholarship in institutions. To sum this up, Casey (2012) re-affirmed the purpose of IRs as partly meant to serve as OA repositories of the intellectual output of the faculty, besides showcasing the tangible results of the institution globally. However, Prost and Schopfel (2014) in their survey of 25 IRs selected from the Directory of Open Access Repositories established that a number of items in these repositories were either metadata without full-text, metadata with full-text only for authorized users, and items that were under embargo or that were restricted to on-campus access.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Faculty and researchers in higher learning institutions, including health sciences, disseminate their research findings throughout the scholarly community for the purpose of advancing knowledge and understanding in a given subject area through a process called scholarly communication (Casey, 2012). Traditionally, scholarly communication has been distributed through print publications.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other researchers have explored concerns from faculty in many disciplines regarding IRs that can be a barrier to depositing their work. These barriers include copyright concerns, a lack of understanding regarding the purpose of an IR and the deposit process, and perceptions of lower-quality content in IRs (Casey, 2012;Covey, 2011;Creaser et al, 2010;Kim, 2011;Yang & Li, 2015).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%