[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

ARL Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit

ARL Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit

The Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit is now available [1] from the Association of Research Libraries (ARL [2]). This document presents the results of a thirty-eight-question survey of 123 ARL members in early 2006 about their institutional repositories practices and plans. The survey response rate was 71% (87 out of 123 ARL members responded). The front matter and nine-page Executive Summary [3] are freely available. The document also presents detailed question-by-question results, a list of respondent institutions, representative documents from institutions, and a bibliography. It is 176 pages long.

Here is the bibliographic information: University of Houston Libraries Institutional Repository Task Force. Institutional Repositories. SPEC Kit 292. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2006. ISBN: 1-59407-708-8.

The members of the University of Houston Libraries [4] Institutional Repository Task Force who authored the document were Charles W. Bailey, Jr.; Karen Coombs; Jill Emery (now at UT Austin); Anne Mitchell; Chris Morris; Spencer Simons; and Robert Wright.

Here are some quick survey results:

- Thirty-seven ARL institutions (43% of respondents) had an
operational IR (we called these respondents implementers), 31 (35%)
were planning one by 2007, and 19 (22%) had no IR plans.
- Looked at from the perspective of all 123 ARL members, 30%
had an operational IR and, by 2007, that figure may reach 55%.
- The mean cost of IR implementation was $182,550.
- The mean annual IR operation cost was $113,543.
- Most implementers did not have a dedicated budget for either
start-up costs (56%) or ongoing operations (52%).
- The vast majority of implementers identified first-level IR
support units that had a library reporting line vs. one that had a
campus IT or other campus unit reporting line.
- DSpace [5] was by far the most commonly used system: 20
implementers used it exclusively and 3 used it in combination with
other systems.
- Proquest DigitalCommons [6] (or the Bepress software it is
based on) was the second choice of implementers: 7 implementers used
this system.
- While 28% of implementers have made no IR software
modifications to enhance its functionality, 22% have made frequent
changes to do so and 17% have made major modifications to the
- Only 41% of implementers had no review of deposited
documents. While review by designated departmental or unit officials
was the most common method (35%), IR staff reviewed documents 21% of
the time.
- In a check all that apply question, 60% of implementers said
that IR staff entered simple metadata for authorized users and 57%
said that they enhanced such data. Thirty-one percent said that they
cataloged IR materials completely using local standards.
- In another check all that apply question, implementers
clearly indicated that IR and library staff use a variety of
strategies to recruit content: 83% made presentations to faculty and
others, 78% identified and encouraged likely depositors, 78% had
library subject specialists act as advocates, 64% offered to deposit
materials for authors, and 50% offered to digitize materials and
deposit them.
- The most common digital preservation arrangement for
implementers (47%) was to accept any file type, but only preserve
specified file types using data migration and other techniques. The
next most common arrangement (26%) was to accept and preserve any
file type.
- The mean number of digital objects in implementers' IRs was

[1] http://www.arl.org/pubscat/pr/2006/spec292.html
[2] http://www.arl.org/
[3] http://www.arl.org/spec/SPEC292web.pdf
[4] http://info.lib.uh.edu/index.html
[5] http://dspace.org/
[6] http://www.umi.com/products_umi/digitalcommons/


Best Regards,

Charles W. Bailey, Jr., Assistant Dean for Digital Library
Planning and Development, University of Houston Libraries
E-Mail: cbailey@digital-scholarship.com
Publications: http://www.digital-scholarship.com/

(Provides access to DigitalKoans, Open Access Bibliography,
Open Access Webliography, Scholarly Electronic Publishing
Bibliography, Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog,
and other publications.)