Interoperability of open access repositories in computer science and IT – an evaluation

Bhat, Mohammad Hanief

doi:10.1108/07378831011026724

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of studies have focused on IRs in specific geographical areas, such as Canada (Shearer, 2006), Zimbabwe (Nyambi & Maynard, 2012), India (Sawant, 2011;Tripathi & Jeevan, 2011), or Asian countries in general (Nazim & Mukherjee, 2011). Other focuses have been on subjectbased repositories for particular disciplines, such as chemistry (Warr, 2003) and computer science and IT (Bhat, 2010). There is also a significant amount of literature on format repositories, particularly repositories for theses (an overview has been provided by Yiotis, 2008) and learning objects (a quantitative study of the global infrastructure is provided by Ochoa and Duval, 2009).…”

Section: Research Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open‐access repositories worldwide, 2005–2012: Past growth, current characteristics, and future possibilities

Pinfield

Salter

Bath

et al. 2014

Asso for Info Science & Tech

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the worldwide growth of open-access (OA) repositories, December 2005 to December 2012, using data collected by the OpenDOAR project. It shows that initial repository development was focused on North America, Western Europe and Australasia, particularly the USA, UK, Germany and Australia. Soon after, Japan increased its repository numbers. Since 2010, other geographical areas and countries have seen repository growth, including East Asia (especially Taiwan), South America (especially Brazil) and Eastern Europe (especially Poland). During the whole period, countries such as France, Italy and Spain have maintained steady growth, whereas countries such as China and Russia have experienced relatively low levels of growth. Globally, repositories are predominantly institutional, multidisciplinary and English-language-based. They typically use opensource OAI-compliant repository software but remain immature in terms of explicit licensing arrangements. Whilst the size of repositories is difficult to assess accurately, the available data indicate that a small number of large repositories and a large number of small repositories make up the repository landscape. These trends and characteristics are analyzed using Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) building on previous studies. IDT is shown to provide a useful explanatory framework for understanding repository adoption at various levels: global, national, organizational and individual. Major factors affecting both the initial development of repositories and their take up by users are identified, including IT infrastructure, language, cultural factors, policy initiatives, awareness-raising activity and usage mandates. It is argued that mandates in particular are likely to play a crucial role in determining future repository development.2

show abstract

Section: Research Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open‐access repositories worldwide, 2005–2012: Past growth, current characteristics, and future possibilities

Pinfield

Salter

Bath

et al. 2014

Asso for Info Science & Tech

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In terms of non-journal documents, Bhat found that OAIster retrieved 73% of documents from the ten OAI-PMH compliant repositories in their study; however, OAIster ranked eighth behind general-purpose search engines including Google, suggesting that OAIster is succeeding but that harvestable repositories still have more work to do with respect to improving their visibility in OAIster and other discovery tools. 23 While these "alternative uses" of OAIster are significant, the remainder of this review will evaluate OAIster as a tool for library end users to discover and access relevant information. Three interfaces will be reviewed: the public interface to OAIster, WorldCat.org; the First-Search interfaces, and EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS).…”

Section: Pricing: N/a N/a N/a Contract Options: N/a N/a N/amentioning

confidence: 99%

OAIster on EBSCO Discovery Service, FirstSearch, and OAIster.worldcat.org

Gaines¹,

Fagan²

2015

charleston adv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review of OAIster investigated the utility of OAIster as a tool for library users to discover and access relevant information. Because the vision for OAIster is so large, one goal of this review was to describe OAIster based on reviewing search results. FirstSearch, OAIster.worldcat.org, and EBSCO Discovery Service interfaces were reviewed. Five searches were performed in each interface, and the material types and counts were recorded. Because OAIster is intended to link only to publicly accessible resources, links to resources were also tested. The review found large differences across interfaces in the number of results, classification of records into material types, and access to resources. Discovery tools do not always map OAIster metadata effectively, and public search engines do not seem to thoroughly index OAIster. Some OAIster records link to non-full-text or not publicly accessible resources. OAIster is a valuable tool for discovering resources in archives, special collections, and institutional repositories, but its place among Open Access search tools is still somewhat unclear. pricing options OAIster is an Open Access database and its native interface is open to the public. Institutions and consortia can also access OAIster through discovery services such as EBSCO Discovery Service, and OAIster is available to OCLC FirstSearch Base Package subscribers. OCLC intends to replace FirstSearch by the end of the calendar year; First-Search libraries and content will all be transitioning to WorldCat Discovery. 1 WorldCat Discovery was not available to us at the time of testing or writing this article, so we were unable to compare within that interface. product description Describing OAIster is challenging. The official product description is somewhat vague: OAIster is a union catalog of millions of records representing Open Access resources that was built by harvesting from Open Access collections worldwide using the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). Today, OAIster includes more than 30 million records representing digital resources from more than 1,500 contributors. 2 An OCLC representative noted that OAIster records "should only describe materials that are Open Access and therefore accessible online," but that OCLC does not currently have an automated process to proactively "ensure that OAIster records that have URLs always link The Charleston Advisor / April 2015 www.charlestonco.com 5

show abstract

“…Visibility can be enhanced by putting research into IRs that are OAI-PMH interoperable. 5 The OAI-PMH protocol was primarily developed as a low-barrier method for interoperability between metadata repositories and provides an interoperability framework based on metadata harvesting by defining two classes of participants: data providers that expose metadata and service providers that harvest metadata. The IR's metadata schema has a key role in increasing interoperability of the repository, i.e., maximizing visibility of theses and dissertations that are stored in the repository.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%