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

Re: ARL Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit


(1) Question 26 asked:

"Is there any pressure on authors to submit content to the IR?"

For respondents that had an operational IR (N=36), the result

No pressure on authors to submit content: 18, 50%
They are encouraged to do so: 16, 44%
They are not required to do so, but this is being actively
considered: 1, 3%
They are required to do so: 1, 3%

Asked to explain the requirement, the one respondent said:
"Students must submit theses or dissertations."

(2) One section of question 9 yielded a wide range of start-up costs ($8,000-$1.8 million) and operational costs ($8,600-$500,000) for respondents that had operational IRs.

Cost breakdowns revealed that staffing and benefits were the largest cost factor.

One section of question 9 asked:

"Please estimate the percentage of the budget allocated to each
of the following categories."

For respondents that had an operational IR, the mean results
for start-up costs were:

Staffing and benefits: 63.3%
Hardware acquisition: 25.6%
Software acquisition: 23.0%
Hardware maintenance: 9.2%
Software maintenance: 6.0%
Vendor fees (if IR is hosted
by an external vendor): 70.2

For respondents that had an operational IR, the mean results
for ongoing operation costs were:

Staffing and benefits: 68.3%
Hardware acquisition: 23.3%
Software acquisition: 14.5%
Hardware maintenance: 10.3%
Software maintenance: 11.5%
Vendor fees (if IR is hosted
by an external vendor): 73.8%

(3) Respondents were not asked why they picked a particular IR software package. Aside from DSpace and DigitalCommons, the other software packages being used by respondents with operational IRs were CONTENTdm (used either in conjunction with DSpace or alone) or ETD-db and Open Conference Systems (used with DSpace by one respondent). It is unknown why EPrints is not being used.

While the survey attempted to be as comprehensive as possible, its length had to be restricted. As it was, it was certainly one of the longest (if not the longest) survey of this type that ARL has ever done.

Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Charles,
> Many thanks for your helpful replies to the three questions (though
> in fact those weren't actually the three questions I had in mind!).
> I was in fact wondering about the following three questions (though I
> am not implying that you are the one who ought to know or provide
> the answers!):
> (1) Why, among all the means mentioned for recruiting content, ARL
> did not mention the most powerful and successful of them all
> (institution/funder mandates)?
> http://eprints.comp.utas.edu.au:81/archive/00000375/
> (2) Why were the average costs for start-up and annual maintenance
> for ARL archives ($182,550; $113,543) so high?
> Cf:
> http://library.uncw.edu/web/faculty/kempr/documents/listserv-summary-IR-open-source-costs.xls
> http://www.arl.org/sparc/pubs/enews/aug01.html#6
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4443.html
> (3) Why does the distribution of softwares used to create ARL IRs in particular
> seem to be so skewed, compared to the US and worldwide distribution:
> dspace/bepress/eprints
> ARL IRs: 23d/7b/0e
> US total IRs: 36d/40b/33e
> World IRs: 111d/47b/123e
> Source: ROAR http://archives.eprints.org/
> Best wishes, Stevan
> Stevan Harnad