DigitalHub: A Repository Focused on the Future

Ilik, Violeta; Hebal, Piotr; Olson, Anton J; Wishnetsky, Susan; Pastva, Joelen; Kubilius, Ramune K.; Shank, Jonathan; Gutzman, Karen E; Chung, Margarita; Holmes, Kristi L.

doi:10.1080/02763869.2018.1404386

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this study provide valuable information about the availability of, characteristics of, and future plans for IRs in medical schools and academic health centers. This study addresses a gap in the professional literature by gathering granular and up-to-date information from AAHSL member libraries about their IRs, allowing us to look at trends and acquire a generalized view beyond individual cases and pilot studies [2–4], website and directory surveys [5, 6], and brief availability statistics that have been compiled by AAHSL [11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis

Kipnis

Palmer

Kubilius

2019

jmla

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study uses survey research methods to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional repository (IR) landscape in medical schools and academic health centers.Methods: Members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) were surveyed about their IRs. The authors used a mixed-methods approach of a survey and qualitative content analysis to identify common themes.Results: Survey results indicate that a large majority of responding medical schools and academic health centers have or are implementing an IR (35 out of 50, 70%). Of these, 60% (21 institutions) participate in an institution-wide IR rather than administer their own repositories. Much of the archived content is grey literature that has not already been published, but the percentage of original content varies greatly among institutions. The majority (57.1%) of respondent institutions are not considering an open access policy or mandate. Most institutions (71.4%) reported that repository staff are depositing materials on behalf of users. dSPACE and bepress Digital Commons are the most popular repository platforms in this community. The planned enhancements that were most frequently reported were implementing a discovery layer and ORCID integration. The majority of respondents (54.3%) do not plan to migrate to a different platform in the foreseeable future. Analysis of respondent comments identified the following themes: integration, redundancy, and reporting; alternatives and exploration; uniqueness; participation; and funding and operations.Conclusions: The study results capture a view of the IR landscape in medical schools and academic health centers and help readers understand what services their peers have in place as well as their plans for future developments. This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fay et al described the process for setting up and populating an IR for the large Aurora Health Care system in Wisconsin [3]. Also, Ilik et al reported on the development and launch of a next-generation repository for the nontraditional scholarly outputs of Northwestern Medicine [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis

Kipnis

Palmer

Kubilius

2019

jmla

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: a scoping review

Giustini

Read²,

Deardorff³

et al. 2021

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To identify the engagement of health sciences librarians (HSLs) in open science (OS) through the delivery of library services, support, and programs for researchers.Methods: We performed a scoping review guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and Joanna Briggs’ Manual for Scoping Reviews. Our search methods consisted of searching five bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LISTA, and Web of Science Core Collection), reference harvesting, and targeted website and journal searching. To determine study eligibility, we applied predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria and reached consensus when there was disagreement. We extracted data in duplicate and performed qualitative analysis to map key themes.Results: We included fifty-four studies. Research methods included descriptive or narrative approaches (76%); surveys, questionnaires, and interviews (15%); or mixed methods (9%). We labeled studies with one or more of FOSTER's six OS themes: open access (54%), open data (43%), open science (24%), open education (6%), open source (6%), and citizen science (6%). Key drivers in OS were scientific integrity and transparency, openness as a guiding principle in research, and funder mandates making research publicly accessible.Conclusions: HSLs play key roles in advancing OS worldwide. Formal studies are needed to assess the impact of HSLs’ engagement in OS. HSLs should promote adoption of OS within their research communities and develop strategic plans aligned with institutional partners. HSLs can promote OS by adopting more rigorous and transparent research practices of their own. Future research should examine HSLs’ engagement in OS through social justice and equity perspectives.

show abstract

DigitalHub: A Repository Focused on the Future

Cited by 2 publications

References 7 publications

The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis

The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis

Health sciences librarians’ engagement in open science: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About