Repositories: What is the Target? An Arrow Perspective

Abstract

The key observation about institutional research repositories is that they are under used. This paper looks at why take-up has been slow, and what might encourage researchers to use these facilities. This paper surveys the evolution of practice and rationale for the institutional research repository, looks at existing use studies and opinion surveys of users, and examines ways in which university libraries, the main proponents, have changed their approaches in response to their experience. The experience of Swinburne University of Technology, a partner in the Australian ARROW project, is drawn upon.

Subject librarians' perceptions of institutional repositories as an information resource

“…Writers such as Mercer et al (2007) proposed that the number of items added to IRs is far less important than their role as “disseminating engines”. Other observers have argued that IRs allow information to be shared with external as well as internal users of the organisation (Primary Research Group, 2007; Whitehead, 2005), gaining recognition for the institution's research outputs. Nonetheless Jones et al (2006, p. 17) asserted that “institutional digital library services face a tough battle in being accepted on campuses because alternative systems usually exist”.…”

Interlending and document supply: a review of the recent literature – 53

“…He concludes that “potential savings for a typical US research library might be of the order of $2.3 million per year” – a long and densely argued piece with plenty of figures some of which are controversial – $20 per article for an e only article seems very low even if predicated “on complete (and large scale) automation to spread fixed costs widely.” It is worth persevering with as it is one of the few recent attempts to calculate comprehensive costings for a move to full OA. Whitehead (2005) addresses a key issue – that institutional repositories are underused. He uses the experience of Australia's Swinburne University of Technology with the ARROW project.…”

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

“…Therefore, the difference between the availability of full text and the presence of metadata is -only a few clicks.‖ 57 While the usability of an IR relies on its content size, the value of the content is largely determined by the availability of full-text documents. 58 Researchers are more interested in reading a full article than an abstract. 59 Or, -a combination between abstract and full text documentation would represent a reasonable compromise between user acceptance.‖ 60 The value of an IR and thus self-archiving will be lowered if the majority of its content are metadata with abstract only, or even worse, metadata without an abstract, and if an external link to the full text version becomes unavailable.…”